Ukraine sniping problem...

[uke2se]

- Otherwise, I apologize for threatening to disengage or ignore a fellow forum member, and for failing to respond to each and every point he made. I will rectify this behavior starting in a moment.

Perhaps you should learn what you actually did wrong.

Posting that you are ignoring someone is regarded as off-topic and uncivil. If you're going to ignore me, stop replying to me. You don't have to make a point about you ignoring me. Either way, I'm going to keep replying to you.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Just to be sure, from other posts:

And for the record, an AK-47 is not an air rifle. The armament picture is ticking up in the militant direction from last we knew here.

What are you talking about? You said they were armed with an AK-47 and an air-rifle. Neither of those are sniper rifles.

Sorry, let me change sniper to ... wait, it wasn't even there.

I would like to remind you that you described the two men as "snipers", and you are now trying to back peddle from this.

Yes! I will keep back-pedaling until I live it down! I now consider them Possible/likely elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range. NOT snipers. )otherwise: snipers) with regular, not sniper rifles. Which, for all we really know, are exactly the weapons that killed those people behind the hotel. It might not even be a sniper (your def) we should be looking for!

I've yet to see any evidence of sniper activity except for the verified Berkut snipers.

Verified snipers by rifle type? If so, fair enough. Which model(s) have been identified to your liking? To back your claim (even described as "verified") I presume you have seen that.

Also remember unseen does not mean non-existent. But we've seen no definite snipers on the opposition side. We might've, if Gatehouse's cameraman were quicker.

So together we've covered the crucial semantic issues re: snipers and rifles.
But nothing physically relevant was addressed in all this typing.

You did suggest the elevated gunman hidden inside an 11th floor window with a rifle fatal at range shot at someone and missed, hitting an innocent guy instead. But still you've offered no guess, when the scene is right there on video, which of those other people he might've been shooting at and why, and why it matters who his target was.

I asked. Your answer was: "There "seems" to be a lot of "seeming" in your posts." And there is, in fact, a lot of fail in yours.

That's my problem with Caustic Logic's posts. There's simply no evidence.

False.

There are assertions and home brewn "analysis" and "commentary", but no evidence.

False.

As for Caustic Logic's definition of a sniper, it absolutely matters what he means, as the foundation of his claims is the word of a doctor that said the bullet wounds were similar for sniper victims on both sides. A sniper rifle fires different ammunition than an AK-47.

For you, read the doctor to have said the same elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range - NOT snipers - killed both police and protesters. Does that help?

That's a question I first posed when Caustic Logic started to go on about this doctor. He never gave a satisfactory answer.

Sorry, must have missed that. My answer to (either) whether Dr. Bogomolec knows the difference, or why used the word sniper (whichever was the question you posed) ... gosh, I can only guess really. I doubt that would be satisfactory.

What kind of answer would be satisfactory? How the hell am I supposed to know what she knows and thinks?

What expertise do you have to make this assumption?

I know that left is opposite from right, north from south, etc. Basic concept. And opposite, numerically, is rendered as 180 degrees different (it's half of the 360 degrees in a circle!)

Seriously, this is your evidence?

Yes, for that point. It's video evidence, a direct recording of physical events. That is my evidence regarding the physical events, which are depicted in the video. Is there a better source of evidence I should rely on instead, in your "skeptical" opinion?

I don't think that's quite all your points, but most of them.

 

[uke2se]

It might seem that way, sure.



Yes. Just checking though:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sniper
[count] : a person who shoots at another person from a hidden place
▪ The soldiers were attacked by a sniper. — often used before another noun ▪ a sniper attack
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniper
1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

I'm sorry IF I ever said these guys can only be snipers. I MEANT to point out they fit the profile, and have the right kind of helmets, to match the one Gatehouse saw, and called a sniper.

But by your definition, I think, no special "sniper rifle" ("not equipped" you say) = not sniper. So to avoid further distraction, I'll use ta form of this term when speaking to you: Elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range. NOT snipers. (unless you decide snipers is okay, but you seem really really opposed to that)

By the way, what proof do you have there were ANY people actually killed or even injured by snipers, your definition, in Kiev that day, on any side?

We saw Berkut snipers, using sniper rifles in the act of sniping. We know these people existed. A doctor said she saw sniper wounds on both sides. You assert this to mean there were snipers on the protester's side. For this whole thing to make any sense whatsoever, those snipers would have to be equipped with the same or similar weapons as the Berkut snipers.

Common sense referred to quieter set-up for the central sniper(s) that matter most. Do you disagree? Or do you think they would they run around shouting in crowds, with rifles already assembled and held aloft, like these elevated gunmen with rifles fatal at range?

Assuming the antecedent. Common sense dictates that these people weren't snipers or in the process of setting up a sniper position. A lot of people had helmets on that day. They aren't all snipers.

The latter. I don't know what they were asked. Here, they were asked by action "can I film this?" and someone said no, with a rag over the camera. Maybe he just decided that on his own and the "protesters" generally meant to be totally open about this operation. Otherwise, it looks like a thing they didn't really want seen in detail.

What do you mean "totally open about this operation"? Maybe the guy didn't want them to film in an area where a lot of people lay dying. I know I wouldn't want to be filmed if I lay coughing up blood. Again, you are failing to utilize critical thinking.

There is controversy about the direction of fire, and clues to that on the video. Or so it "seems" to me.

That controversy is only important to you and a handful of other conspiracy theorists, and it has nothing to do with that film, as no shots are fired at all.

It's standard! You plan a false-flag event, report to me with the details! Don't you ever wondfer how I learn so much about them?

So no serious reply?

Oh well.

Don't want to try to rewrite the jumbled mess you produced?

Holy crap: "an extremely powerful rifle developed for the military; capable of destroying light armored vehicles and aircraft more than a mile away." I thought they were for killing people, not armored vehicles and planes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sniper+rifle
Alright, aside from the personalized avoidance of "sniper" to refer to a sniper, I WON'T use that definition for "sniper rifle" at all. These are standard rifles, not special sniper ones, and by the Uke2se dictionary, anyone wielding one cannot be a sniper. So ... no clear proof there were ANY snipers, by that dictionary, anywhere in Kiev in those days, that actually hit anyone. (an image of a guy aiming or even firing one doesn't in itself count)

No, there is proof that there were Berkut snipers. There is no proof (or real evidence) there were any other snipers.

For you, Elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range. NOT snipers. By other definitions, they are potential snipers. It's true I cannot know they actually are. Any prior assertion by me they were snipers should be read as my opinion or hunch, not a known fact.

Perhaps you should start explaining that from the start, as well as explaining why you think your hunches are important in this discussion.

You're one of the "skeptics," right? I'm getting the same meaning for "skepticism" that you just refuted. Skeptical = compliant with the general corporate media narrative. I think that really is your definition, and you deny it because you're not really consciously aware of it.

You can think whatever you want, and you have chosen to believe the same thing as most conspiracy theorists do. My objective in this thread has been to expose your arguments as those of a conspiracy theorist. Thank you for making it easier for me.

Hm, I guesss I should have said an alleged coup d'etat. apologies. They're supposed to get me the details, but the call is a little slow this time ...

Perhaps you should worry about why you are so quick to spout CTs like that.

Again, I was wrong to call the rifles they have sniper rifles, and in your mind to say snipers at all. You have done an awesome job of getting me to change that. But you aren't saying much else that's true or relevant.

On the contrary, my argument is getting stronger with every post you make.

quite false

No, it's true.

Produce your own evidence? This isn't a thing people do.

Yes, it is. You have tried to do it all along.

They examine evidence. I can see directions and basic stuff just fine. You can ignore your own eyes and brain all you like, but you won't get me to do the same.

You aren't qualified to do any of this. Video is a powerful tool, but in the hands of an amateur, you get 50 years of JFK conspiracy theories.

Ah! Doesn't that put you in, well ... the wrong forum?

No.

You admit, then, that you will never seriously engage the evidence you insist doesn't exist.

I will never engage in a conspiracy theory. That's what I said. Don't change it.

You're here just to play your knee-jerk 'reject the CT game,' without once checking into whether it could be right.

I am not interested in using your BS methods to check anything. I will wait with my conclusions until real experts on the scene have a chance to do their thing.

I get called out for "threatening to disengage" from you, when it seemed all along, and you admit, that you were never engaged in the first place.

You got called out for posting that you were going to ignore me. That is considered uncivil and off-topic.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Perhaps you should learn what you actually did wrong.

Posting that you are ignoring someone is regarded as off-topic and uncivil. If you're going to ignore me, stop replying to me. You don't have to make a point about you ignoring me. Either way, I'm going to keep replying to you.

Again, I apologize for that and need to brush up on the rules.

I too will continue to respond to your disengaged, uninformed, yet aggressively dismissive, reflexive, and stale brand of "skepticism."

 

[Caustic Logic]

We saw Berkut snipers, using sniper rifles in the act of sniping.

Very hard to prove, and you haven't. They have to shoot at people to count. You only see them shoot at something.

Point taken though. I'd call them snipers. Why you do, seems dishonest. Until I see a model # for an actual sniper rifle. I'd call that close enough. Otherwise, it's just gunmen, or should be, coming from you. The word "sniper" isn't good enough, is it?

ALSO: You see Berkut getting shot at, blown up in one case, retreating, and running further yet from sniper fire. If you're willing to look. After 12:30, you don't see them in the relevant area at all.

So, you reason, since the only snipers we've seen (that is, not hiding, not being shady, just doing their job in braod daylight) are Berkut ... it must be them also hiding and doing the shooting that matters, between 12:30 and 1:00, right? In hopes they wouldn't be blamed, since no one could see them, could be anyone? Yeah, like that works... Obvious Berkut snipers. Brilliant.

We know these people existed. A doctor said she saw sniper wounds on both sides.

You've asked me before and I ask you now - how can you tell from the wound whether it was a sniper or a regular rifle? Are you talking elevated gunmen ... here or snipers? Be consistent.

You assert this to mean there were snipers on the protester's side.

By the usual definition of sniper, and considering their side is most likely to shoot cops, and if in fact it was the same guns, yeah. Otherwise I admit that whole line of evidence is a bit murky. And so I focus more on the video and surrounding evidence.

For this whole thing to make any sense whatsoever, those snipers would have to be equipped with the same or similar weapons as the Berkut snipers.

What? No they wouldn't. Only for the one reading of the 2nd hand quote to be literally true. Not necessary. Words can get garbled.

Assuming the antecedent. Common sense dictates that these people weren't snipers or in the process of setting up a sniper position. A lot of people had helmets on that day. They aren't all snipers.

I agree, in that they're not THE sniper(s), your def, just regular elevated gunment who could have done some or none of the shooting that matters. There may be no sniper, in fact, by your meaning. It's not necessary either. No blowing up a train a mile away was needed.

What do you mean "totally open about this operation"? Maybe the guy didn't want them to film in an area where a lot of people lay dying. I know I wouldn't want to be filmed if I lay coughing up blood. Again, you are failing to utilize critical thinking.

No, the dying people are in another room, filmed freely. Only the gunmen deploying gets that aggressive censorship. There are other maybes, though, so keep tossing them out! Maybe he was worried the camerman had a cold and was about to sneeze, etc.

That controversy is only important to you and a handful of other conspiracy theorists,

False. The facts behind who the killers were, one clue of which is where they were, matters to a lot of people, and should of course matter to more. I know most people only care that they worked, got the president demonized and overthrown, and we got to stick it to Putin. But the 3-D facts do and should matter to people. I firmly disagree with you here.

and it has nothing to do with that film, as no shots are fired at all.

Brilliant point. It matters, however, in the videos where there IS shooting you can see and trace.

So no serious reply?

if it matters that much, why I'm "under the impression that these people need to report their movements to you to avoid being accused of conspiracy." I'm not. You made that up. Better?

Don't want to try to rewrite the jumbled mess you produced?

No.

No, there is proof that there were Berkut snipers. There is no proof (or real evidence) there were any other snipers.

Model # and I'll let this slide. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.

Perhaps you should start explaining that from the start, as well as explaining why you think your hunches are important in this discussion.

Sorry for the confusion. Most people, in my experience, understand that wehn I or anyone says X is true, it's actually their opinion/hunch that it's true. Some people need explicit reminders of that basic fact or they get confused. Are you one of those?

You can think whatever you want, and you have chosen to believe the same thing as most conspiracy theorists do. My objective in this thread has been to expose your arguments as those of a conspiracy theorist. Thank you for making it easier for me.

Derogatory connotations aside, I have no problem with that. I theorize about conspiracies where I think there might be one and it might matter. You don't, except, with as little knowledge as possible, insisting they're all untrue. That's cool. We're all different.

Perhaps you should worry about why you are so quick to spout CTs like that.

Nope. I have my reasons, they're okay, nothing to worry about. I'll keep an eye on it though.

On the contrary, my argument is getting stronger with every post you make.

Not snipers, no evidence, not skeptical, not sniper rifles, maybe this and maybe that, you never thought of that, you're a CTist, you're wrong, you can't look at videos and understand them, no snipers, not snipers, Berkut snipers "confirmed."

No, that's not much else. What did I miss?

No, it's true.

Okay, the exact definition of "evidence" here sounds a bit stong:
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
Proof is one definition of evidence? That doesn't sound right. I have solid grounds for well-founded suspicion, reason for open-minded consideration (you've foresworn that, so oh well), at the very least. What the hell is that, clues? Good ones then. I usually just say evidence, and will keep saying it. Hell, I'm back to snipers too al around (but rifles, still non-sniper until I have an ID)

Does that help?

Evidence, as I'll keep calling it (partial): Elevated gunmen in the hotel, some gunman/men in the hotel did the most fatal and criminal shooting, it's discernable on video to anyone willing to take a good look, all hotel fire was (at first) denied as they blamed distant government buildings, and of course cui bono - it's used by CTists and professional crime investigators, so yeah, that consideration does matter and it points the same way.

You aren't qualified to do any of this.

What are the "qualifications" to decide what a video shows? Who's insisting, besides you, that I meet these before... what? I can and have read the hell out of videos for years now.

I get that you don't feel qualified (or able) to come up with your own better reading to challenge me.

No.

okay.

I will never engage in a conspiracy theory. That's what I said. Don't change it.

Meaning mmore like "believe" then? Sorry, semantics today ...

I am not interested in using your BS methods to check anything. I will wait with my conclusions until real experts on the scene have a chance to do their thing.

The new government and their European friends will tell you waht to think, based on real, paid well, professional, and totally honest investigators. I'm sure this will confirm blame away from them, and you will believe it without question. Because that is what a "skeptic" would have to do.

You got called out for posting that you were going to ignore me. That is considered uncivil and off-topic.

Again, I apologize for that. That was incredibly off-topic, rude, and uncivil. That, I can hardly imagine. I'm sorry, man.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Less about each other, more about the topic ... just a small point for now.

I don't think I misused the Paet-Ashton quote, but did misquote it. Most people did, but not all.
Ashton: "I think we do want to investigate." should be, as it is in places,
Ashton: "I think they do want to investigate." (actual spoken emphasis on "do")

There's no prior talk of a EU investigation (most likely "we" for Ashton) and no reason to emphasize "do." But it makes total sense in response to Paet just saying "the new, uh ... new coalition that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened, so that there is now stronger and stronger understanding" that they were behind the snipers.

While it's an open point, I'm not sure - but curious - what led him to conclude the beneficiaries didn't want to investigate. But it must have been something. Foreign Ministers inclined to support an anti-Russian turnover don't just go reflexively making up stuff like that.

 

[Border Reiver]

Part of the problem you're having resullts from your imprecise use of the term "sniper" to refer to any gunman who shoots from an elevated position. Police and miltary folks use "snipers" or "sniper teams" to provide "long range precision small arms fire and covert surveillance" (definition as per Canadian Manual on the Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle).

Precision fire is more than just shooting to hit the target - it entails target selection as well - and the shooting at the Maidan appears to be somewhat indiscriminate in selection. By that I mean that the effects of the shooting did not actually achieve any tactical aim for anyone. At best, what you have is not a sniper, but a gunman shooting.

The next part I have trouble with is any doctor looking at a wound and declaring it to be from "sniper fire" - why you ask? Because the wound channel from a precision shot differs from a random shot not a jot.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Part of the problem you're having resullts from your imprecise use of the term "sniper" to refer to any gunman who shoots from an elevated position.

Okay, for you too, I'll go back (I briefly paused) to the less problematic terminology:

I believe the opposition affiliated elevated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers - are responsible for the deaths that effectively brought the opposition power.

That help? "levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers" it will remain, on a text doc here, until both of you nitpickers ackowledge that you're nitpicking over nothing here, in lieu of anything relevant to add. Thx.

ETA: and yes, to save time, I'm leaving out the e. It's as saved. I might re-add it after pasting...

The location part (the hotel, western half) is clearly supported by the most direct recordings possible of physical events. So says i, so no one wants yo try refuting just yet, but I'm looking forward to IDB87's best informed opinion. No pressure, man... just look at it a couple of ways, should take a focused ten minutes tops.
ETA: But the right ten minutes, on the right day, etc. I get that.
ETA: Oh yeah, there's a few videos now. I meant ten or so per video.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Precision fire is more than just shooting to hit the target - it entails target selection as well - and the shooting at the Maidan appears to be somewhat indiscriminate in selection. By that I mean that the effects of the shooting did not actually achieve any tactical aim for anyone. At best, what you have is not a sniper, but a gunman shooting.

Lol, that's an excellent point.

and the shooting at the Maidan appears to be somewhat indiscriminate in selection.

Through the heart, head and neck. This was cited as supporting the description sniper. But it was "indiscriminate," meaning...

the effects of the shooting did not actually achieve any tactical aim for anyone.

Except of course the opposition, who were brought to power by the snipers, effectively. That's why the charge that they did it themselves actually makes enough sense to pause and consider.

At best, what you have is not a sniper, but a gunman shooting.

I'll say what we have is a levated gunman hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with a rifle fatal at range - not, to some, a sniper.

Aside from the location details, which you obviously have no specifics to add to or refute with, can we agree on the semantics quite yet? NOT friggin' snipers then, just people shooting people dead. Some have said "sniper" but I will try hard not to. Okay?

 

[uke2se]

Very hard to prove, and you haven't. They have to shoot at people to count. You only see them shoot at something.

Oh ok. Just remember that bar of evidence when it comes to proving other snipers.

Point taken though. I'd call them snipers. Why you do, seems dishonest.

Why does it seem dishonest? They are using sniper rifles, and they are shooting. It's not like it's two helmeted guys entering an elevator with an AK-47.

Until I see a model # for an actual sniper rifle. I'd call that close enough. Otherwise, it's just gunmen, or should be, coming from you. The word "sniper" isn't good enough, is it?

No, that's a sniper.

ALSO: You see Berkut getting shot at, blown up in one case, retreating, and running further yet from sniper fire. If you're willing to look. After 12:30, you don't see them in the relevant area at all.

How do you know it's from sniper fire?

So, you reason, since the only snipers we've seen (that is, not hiding, not being shady, just doing their job in braod daylight) are Berkut ... it must be them also hiding and doing the shooting that matters, between 12:30 and 1:00, right? In hopes they wouldn't be blamed, since no one could see them, could be anyone? Yeah, like that works... Obvious Berkut snipers. Brilliant.

Well, if you were on the other side of the argument, that's obviously the conclusion you would jump to. A skeptic doesn't jump to conclusions, though, so my point is still that you haven't provided good evidence for other snipers. There very well might be other snipers, but you haven't proved it. Nor will you with the methods you use.

You've asked me before and I ask you now - how can you tell from the wound whether it was a sniper or a regular rifle? Are you talking elevated gunmen ... here or snipers? Be consistent.

I'm talking snipers, and congratulations, you got my point. When you answer the question you just asked you have taken one small step towards skepticism.

By the usual definition of sniper, and considering their side is most likely to shoot cops, and if in fact it was the same guns, yeah. Otherwise I admit that whole line of evidence is a bit murky. And so I focus more on the video and surrounding evidence.

The problem with asserting that there were snipers on the protester's side is that you need to prove they were actually snipers and not simply protesters armed with rifles, pistols and assault rifles. We know the protesters had access to those weapons, and we know they used them. If your entire argument is that the Berkut were fired upon by protesters, you didn't have to invent an entire sniper-narrative. We already know that.

What? No they wouldn't. Only for the one reading of the 2nd hand quote to be literally true. Not necessary. Words can get garbled.

Ok, so I take it we can now dismiss what the doctor said because "words can get garbled"? That's fine by me, but it sort of ruins the foundation of your sniper-narrative.

I agree, in that they're not THE sniper(s), your def, just regular elevated gunment who could have done some or none of the shooting that matters. There may be no sniper, in fact, by your meaning. It's not necessary either. No blowing up a train a mile away was needed.

This is reasonable.

No, the dying people are in another room, filmed freely. Only the gunmen deploying gets that aggressive censorship. There are other maybes, though, so keep tossing them out! Maybe he was worried the camerman had a cold and was about to sneeze, etc.

Well, if you aren't going to take anything seriously but the most sinister of motives, it doesn't really matter what I say. However, maybe... just maybe, they didn't want the Berkut to be aware of their strength, armament and general position.

Is it your argument that the only reason these people didn't want to get filmed was that they were about to set in motion a false-flag sniper-plan?

False. The facts behind who the killers were, one clue of which is where they were, matters to a lot of people, and should of course matter to more. I know most people only care that they worked, got the president demonized and overthrown, and we got to stick it to Putin. But the 3-D facts do and should matter to people. I firmly disagree with you here.

The president was demonized already at this time. He was a corrupt man, and he ordered his police out to beat up and later to shoot protesters. We know that the protesters fired back.

Brilliant point. It matters, however, in the videos where there IS shooting you can see and trace.

Well, you can't, because you're not qualified to do so.

if it matters that much, why I'm "under the impression that these people need to report their movements to you to avoid being accused of conspiracy." I'm not. You made that up. Better?

You seemed peeved that they didn't tell a cameraman exactly what they were doing. I'm just telling you that they have no obligation to do so.

No.

Ok, I'll take it you concede the point then.

Model # and I'll let this slide. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.

I am? I don't think so. What you see the Berkut use is a sniper rifle - probably a bipod Dragunov SVD.

Sorry for the confusion. Most people, in my experience, understand that wehn I or anyone says X is true, it's actually their opinion/hunch that it's true. Some people need explicit reminders of that basic fact or they get confused. Are you one of those?

Well, you see, I belong to the group of people who believes that when someone asserts something as fact, that something is indeed a fact, or the person in question is lying.

Derogatory connotations aside, I have no problem with that. I theorize about conspiracies where I think there might be one and it might matter. You don't, except, with as little knowledge as possible, insisting they're all untrue. That's cool. We're all different.

Where do I insist all conspiracies are untrue?

Nope. I have my reasons, they're okay, nothing to worry about. I'll keep an eye on it though.

I'm sure you do.

Not snipers, no evidence, not skeptical, not sniper rifles, maybe this and maybe that, you never thought of that, you're a CTist, you're wrong, you can't look at videos and understand them, no snipers, not snipers, Berkut snipers "confirmed."

No, that's not much else. What did I miss?

You listed it quite well. The point is, you are working backwards from a pre-conceived conclusion.

Okay, the exact definition of "evidence" here sounds a bit stong:
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
Proof is one definition of evidence? That doesn't sound right. I have solid grounds for well-founded suspicion, reason for open-minded consideration (you've foresworn that, so oh well), at the very least. What the hell is that, clues? Good ones then. I usually just say evidence, and will keep saying it. Hell, I'm back to snipers too al around (but rifles, still non-sniper until I have an ID)

Does that help?

Evidence, as I'll keep calling it (partial): Elevated gunmen in the hotel, some gunman/men in the hotel did the most fatal and criminal shooting, it's discernable on video to anyone willing to take a good look, all hotel fire was (at first) denied as they blamed distant government buildings, and of course cui bono - it's used by CTists and professional crime investigators, so yeah, that consideration does matter and it points the same way.

You keep forgetting that the evidence you list can be evidence of other things than snipers too. That's why it's bad evidence for the narrative you are trying to create.

What are the "qualifications" to decide what a video shows?

You can take a course in trajectory analysis here. For forensic video analysis, you can take "Level 1: Forensic Video Analysis & the Law" here.

Who's insisting, besides you, that I meet these before... what? I can and have read the hell out of videos for years now.

And as far as I've seen, you've been pretty bad at it. You keep making the same mistake in that you determine what to believe first, and then work backwards.

I get that you don't feel qualified (or able) to come up with your own better reading to challenge me.

I don't have to, nor should I, as I don't possess the necessary qualifications either. The difference between you and I is that I realize that I'm not qualified, while you don't.

The new government and their European friends will tell you waht to think, based on real, paid well, professional, and totally honest investigators. I'm sure this will confirm blame away from them, and you will believe it without question. Because that is what a "skeptic" would have to do.

If I find any reason to mistrust the report when it comes, I will do so. At the moment, there is no reason for me to undermine their credibility before they even start working. I realize you need the real experts to be part of the conspiracy, because otherwise your work means nothing, but I'm telling you now, it's time to get over it: Your work is meaningless.

Again, I apologize for that. That was incredibly off-topic, rude, and uncivil. That, I can hardly imagine. I'm sorry, man.

Apology accepted, but I really don't care about it. The moderators do, though.

 

[Border Reiver]

Lol, that's an excellent point.

Yes, it is. The shooting is not indicative of a "sniper" in the military/police use of the term - a gunman is anyone with a weapon who shoots.

Through the heart, head and neck. This was cited as supporting the description sniper. But it was "indiscriminate," meaning...

Indiscriminate meaning that seemingly random people were the targets, not leaders, not persons whose death at that moment brings a larger tactical advantage to one side or another than simply the death of one person.

Shot placement is not what makes a sniper - soldiers are trained to shoot for the centre of mass as this is the largest part of the body and therefore the easiest to hit - and with most Ukranian males having been conscripts at some point the odds are good that most people would have had this training. In the torso of the body is the heart - that a person shot would have a bullet there is not surprising. Hits to the head and neck, give how people move in crowds and the downward angle of the shots, are not surprising. Now if ALL (or even a large majority) of the hits were to the head I might be more inclined to attribute this to a sniper, simply because of the skill level at shooting.

Except of course the opposition, who were brought to power by the snipers, effectively. That's why the charge that they did it themselves actually makes enough sense to pause and consider.

Opposition politician: "We'll hire a couple of gunmen to shoot both protestors and police officers at the protests. We'll ride the indignation of both sides to power - and neither party will hold a grudge when it comes out."

Other politician: "And they won't hold a grudge and have us arrested (at a minimum) because..?"

This activity, if it happened as you are hypothesizing here (that the opposition used snipers to create indignation to get to power), is not very plausible - with it occuring late in the protesting there was already a large body of animus built up against the then incumbent, having him allegedly killing protestors doesn't accelerate the force of change along much faster. By killing police, they're creating a animus against them by a body that is loyal to the incumbent. If we look at the idea that the former president set it up, then he's really stupid - creating more animus against him by the people, and also alienating the security forces.

Now, other than the outcome, what evidence is there that the opposition, or foreigners looking to get the opposition installed, got one or more groups to do the shootings?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh ok. Just remember that bar of evidence when it comes to proving other snipers.

I'm not in the sniper proving business. Gunmen I'm interested in definitely had bullets making contact. Opposite problem there, and I'm not saying snipers. You are, without even a model # to prove it.

Why does it seem dishonest? They are using sniper rifles, and they are shooting. It's not like it's two helmeted guys entering an elevator with an AK-47.

I'm not concinced that's a proper sniper rifle. Not AK-47 does not = sniper rifle. A specific model of sniper rifle does, and you hane NOT verified this. Yet you insist on calling sniper.

No, that's a sniper.

No. Not equipped, man. He's got some kind of rifle, and not even elevated or hidden, or clearly shooting people fatally or even in the foot. I'd let it slide if you weren't being so inconsistent and dishonest on this point. I'd call them snipers, but for this endless nitpicking over the word... That's not a sniper, it's a Berkut marksman.

How do you know it's from sniper fire?

Ah! You caught me in a slip. They run from flying bullets, I presume, hitting their sandbag barricade they're abandoning. They seem to be coming in from distant and high, so ... elevated gunmen.



But this could be anything, right?

I'm talking snipers, and congratulations, you got my point. When you answer the question you just asked you have taken one small step towards skepticism.

Yay! No snipers anywhere, except in your imbalanced and unfair comments. Which I'll keep calling out. You call marksmen snipers, just to jump to the conclusion that the "protester" narrative was true and "confirmed" after all.

The problem with asserting that there were snipers on the protester's side is that you need to prove they were actually snipers and not simply protesters armed with rifles, pistols and assault rifles. We know the protesters had access to those weapons, and we know they used them. If your entire argument is that the Berkut were fired upon by protesters, you didn't have to invent an entire sniper-narrative. We already know that.

No assertion of snipers, anymore! simply protesters armed with rifles, pistols and assault rifles, in the hotel, killed protesters.

The rest, later.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, it is. The shooting is not indicative of a "sniper" in the military/police use of the term - a gunman is anyone with a weapon who shoots.

Gunmen it is. Ukrain'es elevated gunmen hidden behind windows of the hotel Ukraine, fatally shooting people with regular rifles. NOT the dreaded snipers.

Indiscriminate meaning that seemingly random people were the targets, not leaders, not persons whose death at that moment brings a larger tactical advantage to one side or another than simply the death of one person.

Your ignorance of the case shows. The people in the kill zone - otherwise vacant and just then cleared of Berkut - were all from a small group of selected activists sent in, apparently, to die. There were no leaders to choose from, just a couple dozen nobodies, and most of them were shot, and most of those died. As for target selection, the kid who just got his shield up, that idiot who thinks he can run now, etc. One was Jewish - maybe the nose got him selected? With sniper-like precision, but not snipers.

Here's a guy in the line of fire from the hotel, holding a rifle, I'm pretty sure. He's totally vulnerable, but the hotel gunmen don't shoot him.



How strategic is that for a Berkut gunman/marksman/sniper?

Shot placement is not what makes a sniper - soldiers are trained to shoot for the centre of mass as this is the largest part of the body and therefore the easiest to hit - and with most Ukranian males having been conscripts at some point the odds are good that most people would have had this training. In the torso of the body is the heart - that a person shot would have a bullet there is not surprising. Hits to the head and neck, give how people move in crowds and the downward angle of the shots, are not surprising. Now if ALL (or even a large majority) of the hits were to the head I might be more inclined to attribute this to a sniper, simply because of the skill level at shooting.

Very good. Gunmen, not snipers, shot these innocent people.

Opposition politician: "We'll hire a couple of gunmen to shoot both protestors and police officers at the protests. We'll ride the indignation of both sides to power - and neither party will hold a grudge when it comes out."

Other politician: "And they won't hold a grudge and have us arrested (at a minimum) because..?"

This activity, if it happened as you are hypothesizing here (that the opposition used snipers to create indignation to get to power), is not very plausible - with it occuring late in the protesting there was already a large body of animus built up against the then incumbent, having him allegedly killing protestors doesn't accelerate the force of change along much faster. By killing police, they're creating a animus against them by a body that is loyal to the incumbent. If we look at the idea that the former president set it up, then he's really stupid - creating more animus against him by the people, and also alienating the security forces.

Total bull, man.

Sorry, my fault. I forgot to add the other part - they shoot protesters and then blame it on Yanukovych. They wouldn't just admit they brought the snipers and should have a grudge against them now.

Will the Ukrainian people believe it? Not certain, but there's different types of belief and acceptance and simple fear that would work. Corporate media's unquestioning parroting of their blame would surely help. "Skeptical" public showing their belief would help. Yeah, I do think that would fly well enough. I hope it fails eventually though.

Now, other than the outcome, what evidence is there that the opposition, or foreigners looking to get the opposition installed, got one or more groups to do the shootings?

The outcome is prety good, but there is other evidence/clues/indicators. If by eviidence you mean smoking gun proof even you can't deny, none yet. I've been going over the video evidence and stuff, when I'm not distracted by endless challenges to the S word I'm trying to not even use. You seem behind on the scene details, so maybe a review would be good? Thanks for at least covering something else briefly.

 

[uke2se]

I'm not in the sniper proving business.

Clearly not, or you would have been able to do it by now. You are seemingly in the sniper asserting business though.

Gunmen I'm interested in definitely had bullets making contact. Opposite problem there, and I'm not saying snipers. You are, without even a model # to prove it.

Being childish isn't going to strengthen your case.

I'm not concinced that's a proper sniper rifle. Not AK-47 does not = sniper rifle. A specific model of sniper rifle does, and you hane NOT verified this. Yet you insist on calling sniper.

It's a sniper rifle. Most likely a Dragunov SVD.

No. Not equipped, man.

It's a sniper rifle.

He's got some kind of rifle, and not even elevated or hidden, or clearly shooting people fatally or even in the foot.

Those are simply your made up definitions of a sniper. The guy is using a sniper rifle. Denial of this is simply making your argument look silly.

I'd let it slide if you weren't being so inconsistent and dishonest on this point.

Where have I been inconsistent and dishonest? Please provide concrete examples, or kindly retract this accusation.

I'd call them snipers, but for this endless nitpicking over the word... That's not a sniper, it's a Berkut marksman.

It's a sniper using a sniper rifle. Denying this makes your argument look silly.

Ah! You caught me in a slip.

It seems I keep doing that.

They run from flying bullets, I presume, hitting their sandbag barricade they're abandoning. They seem to be coming in from distant and high, so ... elevated gunmen.

It should also be noted that sniper fire doesn't tend to "blow up" people.

But this could be anything, right?

Now, this is a perfect example of your lack of video analysis skills, and what is wrong with the way you approach this.

On the video, we see a group of uniformed men - presumably riot police - jogging across the frame. Jogging. They aren't taking cover. To someone who's been under fire, this would mean that they weren't. We also see a puff of smoke. Could be a bullet impacting? Sure. It could also be someone firing a weapon. We don't know, because we can't see. Your commentary is that this shows Berkut running away under sniper fire.

Now, if that wasn't ridiculous enough, you cut to a man poking his head up from behind cover. The video is too grainy to make out any details, so we don't even know if the guy is armed. Your commentary is that this is the sniper "chasing" the riot police.

I'm amazed you can post this with a straight face, it's so ridiculous.

Yay! No snipers anywhere, except in your imbalanced and unfair comments. Which I'll keep calling out. You call marksmen snipers, just to jump to the conclusion that the "protester" narrative was true and "confirmed" after all.

Well you see, in the one case we see a guy firing a sniper rifle (a bipod rifle with a telescopic sight). In the other case we have an air rifle and an AK-47.

No assertion of snipers, anymore! simply protesters armed with rifles, pistols and assault rifles, in the hotel, killed protesters.

The rest, later.

How do you know they killed protesters?

 

[Caustic Logic]

The problem with asserting that there were snipers on the protester's side is that you need to prove they were actually snipers and not simply protesters armed with rifles, pistols and assault rifles. We know the protesters had access to those weapons, and we know they used them.

Cool, thanks. I'm not trying, and never was, to assert that the murderers were armed specifically with sniper rifles. levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers

ETA: ...and that they used those non-sniper rifles (plus possiblly actual sniper rifles, for all we know) to kill unarmed innocents behind the hotel, to blame on the president and give their planned coup d'etat a veneer of moral legitimacy.

If your entire argument is that the Berkut were fired upon by protesters, you didn't have to invent an entire sniper-narrative. We already know that.

Well it's not my entire argument or even the main part of it, now, is it?

Ok, so I take it we can now dismiss what the doctor said because "words can get garbled"?

Are you eager to dismiss it outright? I said garbled, not baseless. Making a whole theory reliant on a literal reading of possibly garbled words isn't sound. Neither is ignoring the possibility that a correct reading would yield important insights.

That's fine by me, but it sort of ruins the foundation of your sniper-narrative.

You're the one with a sniper narrative you just used her words to support. My main narrative is that levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers -

This is reasonable.

This being where I explain that snipers (by your special definition not in standard dictionaries - a sniper armed with a proper sniper rifle) may not even be present at all. It could just be levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range, and hired by the opposition, that killed those people behind the hotel. But if it turns out sniper rifle rounds hit those people hit from the hotel, guess what? I'll be able to say those were sniper(s) even by your definition.

Well, if you aren't going to take anything seriously but the most sinister of motives, it doesn't really matter what I say. However, maybe... just maybe, they didn't want the Berkut to be aware of their strength, armament and general position.

They bacame aware, after getting shot from the hotel roof (allegedly) and protester lines in general (seen on video, several cases), by no later than 12:25 when they finally marched out of the area altogether. Or maybe that's just more mid-day jogging with no cause but fitness (see way below, next post or one after).

Is it your argument that the only reason these people didn't want to get filmed was that they were about to set in motion a false-flag sniper-plan?

No, just more that they're worried somehow that too many images of "protesters" with deadly rifles getting elevated in the hotel, plus whatever else people might learn about ginfire from the hotel, might raise suspicions that, true or false, they'd rather not have raised. That's consistent either with excessive worry about almost nothing, or with reasonable care over the less-secret part of a wicked plan that probably had a more top-secret portion too.

The president was demonized already at this time. He was a corrupt man, and he ordered his police out to beat up and later to shoot protesters. We know that the protesters fired back.

It's well known fact that the mass-shooting of innocent protesters on the 20th was cause #1 and the largest straw that broke the camel's back, Everyone acknowledges this when blaming Yanukovych for his own demise. But as soon as it's a possible rebel operation, some "skeptic" will tell you the sniper massacre barely matters...

Yes, I'm not one of the "skeptics" here.

Well, you can't, because you're not qualified to do so.

What? Because I didn't take a particular course, I'm unable to tell what 's happening in a video? If I do, since I can't ... what happens? Someone arrests me? You reject the analysis? I'm not worried about what you think I can and can't do. (see way below, next post or one after)

You seemed peeved that they didn't tell a cameraman exactly what they were doing. I'm just telling you that they have no obligation to do so.

What? Peeved that they didn't explain? No, I noted that they're trying to conceal their use of elevated gunmen with rifles fatal at arange, in the Hotel Ukraine.

I intend to get a translation on this. The words will help settle it.

Ok, I'll take it you concede the point then.

You can but I don't. I just don't remember or care what it was that you didn't understand. I stand by it, probably. If it's a big deal, dig it up for me and I'll re-explain.

I am? I don't think so. What you see the Berkut use is a sniper rifle - probably a bipod Dragunov SVD.

Okay, that I can look into. I might, eventually.

Well, you see, I belong to the group of people who believes that when someone asserts something as fact, that something is indeed a fact, or the person in question is lying.

Ah, sounds handy. You must think you caught me in a lie then. You should patent this groupthinking method, invent a new type of lie detector based on it.

Where do I insist all conspiracies are untrue?

I never meant to say that, sorry. Just all thinking you deem "conspiracy theory."

You listed it quite well.

So you've said almost nothing except about enforcing your made-up definition of sniper, which I'm using.

The point is, you are working backwards from a pre-conceived conclusion.

And you are starting forward from a blank slate of total objectivity, right?

You keep forgetting that the evidence you list can be evidence of other things than snipers too. That's why it's bad evidence for the narrative you are trying to create.

No, I don't forget that. To me evidence (clues, indications, whatever you call it) isn't proof mainly because it could be consistent with other things.

But when enough things consistent with A keep appearing, and the other explanation is that also-consistent B and C and coincidentally D and E all happened, just to make sure A can't be true ... the more logical choice is A is true, and that's why so many points of evidence consistent with it keep appearing.

You can take a course in trajectory analysis here. For forensic video analysis, you can take "Level 1: Forensic Video Analysis & the Law" here.

I could, thanks.

And as far as I've seen, you've been pretty bad at it.

There's a reason for that - you can't see far.

I don't have to, nor should I, as I don't possess the necessary qualifications either. The difference between you and I is that I realize that I'm not qualified, while you don't.

It wouldn't be a "realization" for me to claim I can't analyze video. For you, yes. You're pretty bad. You start from a preconceived notion I must be wrong, and then just fail in place, tossing out disconnected "maybes." (see way below...)

If I find any reason to mistrust the report when it comes, I will do so.

If it blames Yanukovych and Putin, you won't. I guarantee that.

it's time to get over it: Your work is meaningless.

Those letters you typed must have some real value to someone.

Apology accepted, but I really don't care about it. The moderators do, though.

Ah. Well, the mods don't keep bringing it up like you, harping on me like a puppy in housebreaking to "learn what I did wrong." So I figured either you were fairly upset about it, or were just trying to oppose and annoy me in every conceivable way. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Clearly not, or you would have been able to do it by now. You are seemingly in the sniper asserting business though.

Am I? When was the last time, aside from the slip I retracted, where I asserted "snipers" as opposed to "levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range" ?

Being childish isn't going to strengthen your case.

It's "childish" to call you out for your inconsistency?

It's a sniper rifle. Most likely a Dragunov SVD.

A "most likely" ID. That's kind of what I was asking for. Was that so hard?

It's a sniper rifle.

So you keep asserting, and maybe it's true.

Those are simply your made up definitions of a sniper. The guy is using a sniper rifle. Denial of this is simply making your argument look silly.

Did I? Well the top two online dictionaries already copied me then. As I already showed you, this and this together say:
- a person who shoots at another person from a hidden place
- A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
- One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

I guess I added the elevated part, but that is usually the case. No mention of needing to have a special sniper rifle, or rifle at all - a sniper "shoots" and is "concealed/hidden" in standard definitions. Okay, but to limit arguments and make progress possible, I'm still going with your made up definition.

These Berkut, not hidden or concealed, not proven to be shooting people, and until now no sniper rifle ID even ventured. Still, I'll let it slide, even though the in the open part makes them more marksmen with sniper rifles than snipers, by these accepted definitions. So you have proven Berkut snipers of no proven relevance, and I have levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range, and several people actually killed by some kind of guns fired from that hotel.

Where have I been inconsistent and dishonest? Please provide concrete examples, or kindly retract this accusation.

Okay ... You said it was verified these Berkut were snipers, which by your own definition can only be by an ID of a proper sniper rifle. So I kept asking for what it was, when you implied that you had seen this ID/confirmation. Or did you just presume that had been confirmed, and only look it up once I pressed you?

You expect me to bow to your made up definitions, but don't even recognize them yourself. That's inconsistent and unfair, if not exactly dishonest. It's not a huge deal either, but considering the huge deal you've made about my use of the S word, which again I am done with, ... it's a bit annoying, dig?

It's a sniper using a sniper rifle. Denying this makes your argument look silly.

Getting hung up on semantics over whether the murderers were snipers or just men with guns and protester helmets, makes you look awesome.

It seems I keep doing that.

Had kept. It was a slip. But yeah, you were really on a rolll there back when I was using the S word in the usual, accepted sense, to which you opposed vociferously, inventing your own definition which, to keep complaints down, I adopted. But you barely noticed, still complaining about my use of the S word, which I'm not even doing anymore. But you "keep" catching me doing it, so oh well. Have a ball.

It should also be noted that sniper fire doesn't tend to "blow up" people.

Awesome note, thanks. Yeah, that's seperate mystery even, perhaps connected to their powerful firework rockets. No one ever said it was "sniper fire" and I haven't said anything was by sniper anything in the last page or so, except the one slip which I corrected as soon as possible.

Now, this is a perfect example of your lack of video analysis skills, and what is wrong with the way you approach this.

Not semantics! And here's why you prefer to get hung up on semantics rather than tackling the evidence. ... worth a fresh post. Finishing this with more other stuff:

Well you see, in the one case we see a guy firing a sniper rifle (a bipod rifle with a telescopic sight). In the other case we have an air rifle and an AK-47.

Fair enough. One sniper was at ground level, in the open, in an area from which we have no proof of any fatal shots fired. The others, while not snipers, could easily kill people from the hotel they were in, and from which the largest number of people were shot dead.

Now ... Is it okay for protesters to shoot people dead, as long as they use AK-47s and such rather than sniper rifles to do it? If it's not okay, then ... what the hell is the big point arguing that they weren't exactly snipers? It seems to be your #1 issue, and Boarder Reaver's, but it seems to me like simple semantics. What am I missing?

How do you know they killed protesters?

That question sounds so dumb, I'm guessing I misread it. Which part(s) are you contesting? They, killed, or protesters?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Uke2se attempted video analysis - to note up front, he (right?) is not a qualified expert, or claiming to be. As the one with an issue about qualifications, it should be presumed his assessment here is of a "low confidence" sort.

Again for comparison, here's the video with enhancements.

On the video, we see a group of uniformed men - presumably riot police - jogging across the frame. Jogging. They aren't taking cover. To someone who's been under fire, this would mean that they weren't.

At least I can tell you spent a few seconds looking at it before you started giggling. Honestly, that's more than I expected.

The yellow armband is generally taken as a sign of Berkut, at least on that day, but maybe it's riot police with the same band, whatever - some kind of authorities, leaving the scene. You're sure that whatever caliber gun at whatever range and with their helmets and armor, if shots were towards them they would be running full tilt. I'm not so sure; they might, and they might not if they don't need to. Point taken, but it doesn't seem like much.

Do note they're not strolling away. This is what I'd call a brisk trot. "Jogging" sounds silly, so I'll have a bit of fun with it. And, at the outset, you acknowledge those could be bullet impacts at the barricade they're leaving. So logically, this could be just the speed they'd adopt when fleeing those bullets. So ... no big disagreement yet, right?

We also see a puff of smoke. Could be a bullet impacting? Sure. It could also be someone firing a weapon. We don't know, because we can't see. Your commentary is that this shows Berkut running away under sniper fire.

First, "sniper fire" meaning, for you, gunfire from a probably elevated and likely concealed position.

the "smoke" or dust looks to me like sand from a bag that was hit. It's got direction to it,(0:18), and the second one seen also looks like a hit to me (0:24). Maybe it's not impacts. You could be right here. That second one, actually seems to have a second puff suggesting a third hit or whatever it is.

The thing about a video is it's a recording of an event, and events unfold by actual logic. Real events are not strings of "maybes" lumped together. I have a logical narrative that explains everything we see. Let's see what you could have, so far.

One of their Berkut (snipers, would it be?) is laying down behind the barricade, shooting in whatever direction, maybe hitting their own sandbags repeatedly. Maybe he's drunk. The others are just jogging, since they're clearly in no danger, probably for the president's Berkut fitness program. This guy has their back. They're doing big laps, since they don't seem to ever come back to this spot. The gunman stays, and that's him we see with the helmet. Might be Steven Seagal, sent in by Putin to help shape these guys up.

Now, if that wasn't ridiculous enough, you cut to a man poking his head up from behind cover. The video is too grainy to make out any details, so we don't even know if the guy is armed. Your commentary is that this is the sniper "chasing" the riot police.

"Sniper" was not the best word for him, even in pre-UKE2se-definition days. I thought it looked like a possible scope ... but you know, you made me double-check. And coincidentally, I might well be wrong on that part, and it's the more interesting part.

I was "zoomed in" too far and didn't zoom back. The original video (9:16 or so) almost helps more. The "pursuing gunman" (never did see a sign of movement) is standing there as the Berkut flee - was he shooting at them from five feet away before they started running? Possible... He then seems to duck from the fire/as the firing happens, before the helmet pops up that I noticed, in between bobbing around (getting a bead on his targets, or a weird type of hyper-ducking?). In fact, a puff appears near his head right before he ducks. Is he shooting and getting shot at? I can't time any particular shots to an action of his - But still that looks a bit like a rifle scope raising, with a hunching, aiming posture, if he were facing their way, as he seems to be...

I suspect even a true expert would have a hard time here, but probably less so. I'll see if one can help. I have contacts.

 

[uke2se]

Cool, thanks. I'm not trying, and never was, to assert that the murderers were armed specifically with sniper rifles. levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers

Why do you lie? You have clearly been asserting that they were snipers all along. The only reason you stopped calling them snipers (here, you still call them snipers in your youtubes) is that I showed you they weren't snipers.

ETA: ...and that they used those non-sniper rifles (plus possiblly actual sniper rifles, for all we know) to kill unarmed innocents behind the hotel, to blame on the president and give their planned coup d'etat a veneer of moral legitimacy.

Oh boy, this is what you're trying to prove? Well, you've got a long way to go. Furthermore, this is another excellent example of you making your mind up first and then working to find evidence to fit your narrative.

Well it's not my entire argument or even the main part of it, now, is it?

No, apparently your argument is that it was a false flag.

Are you eager to dismiss it outright? I said garbled, not baseless. Making a whole theory reliant on a literal reading of possibly garbled words isn't sound. Neither is ignoring the possibility that a correct reading would yield important insights.

But you are building your theory on these, possibly garbled, words. You haven't presented any other evidence for snipers that weren't Berkut - and I do mean that. Your video analysis is too laughable to be called evidence.

You're the one with a sniper narrative you just used her words to support. My main narrative is that levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range - not, to some, snipers -

No, I'm pretty sure you have been using the word "sniper" throughout your argument. As I said, you are trying to back pedal now because you've been called on it, but you have been trying to build a sniper narrative from the very beginning.

This being where I explain that snipers (by your special definition not in standard dictionaries - a sniper armed with a proper sniper rifle) may not even be present at all. It could just be levated gunmen hidden in windows of the hotel Ukraine, with rifles fatal at range, and hired by the opposition, that killed those people behind the hotel. But if it turns out sniper rifle rounds hit those people hit from the hotel, guess what? I'll be able to say those were sniper(s) even by your definition.

It's not my special definition. A sniper is a very specialized military role.

They bacame aware, after getting shot from the hotel roof (allegedly) and protester lines in general (seen on video, several cases), by no later than 12:25 when they finally marched out of the area altogether. Or maybe that's just more mid-day jogging with no cause but fitness (see way below, next post or one after).

What are you saying here? Berkut later became aware of the strength of the armed people in the hotel, so it makes no sense for the armed people in the hotel to attempt to mask their strength before? I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

No, just more that they're worried somehow that too many images of "protesters" with deadly rifles getting elevated in the hotel, plus whatever else people might learn about ginfire from the hotel, might raise suspicions that, true or false, they'd rather not have raised. That's consistent either with excessive worry about almost nothing, or with reasonable care over the less-secret part of a wicked plan that probably had a more top-secret portion too.

From your description here, I'd say my summary is accurate. You are actually saying that they either worried about nothing or they had sinister motives. That dichotomy only exists in your mind. There are multiple other reasons for why they might not have wanted to be filmed. Another good example of why your methods are faulty.

It's well known fact that the mass-shooting of innocent protesters on the 20th was cause #1 and the largest straw that broke the camel's back, Everyone acknowledges this when blaming Yanukovych for his own demise. But as soon as it's a possible rebel operation, some "skeptic" will tell you the sniper massacre barely matters...

Yes, I'm not one of the "skeptics" here.

Is it?

Up until the 20th, around 100 people had died already, most of them in clashes with the police. On the 20th, around 60-70 additional people died. How many of these were shot by false flag "elevated gunmen"? Why do those deaths mean more than the many other deaths?

What? Because I didn't take a particular course, I'm unable to tell what 's happening in a video?

Yes, because you are unqualified, you are unable to make a forensic evaluation of a video. That's what you're trying to do.

If I do, since I can't ... what happens? Someone arrests me? You reject the analysis? I'm not worried about what you think I can and can't do. (see way below, next post or one after)

If you do, any rational viewer should reject your analysis. I mean, it's really bad. Even someone unqualified - like me - can see that you're just guessing.

What? Peeved that they didn't explain? No, I noted that they're trying to conceal their use of elevated gunmen with rifles fatal at arange, in the Hotel Ukraine.

No, you asserted that without sufficient evidence.

I intend to get a translation on this. The words will help settle it.

Go ahead.

You can but I don't. I just don't remember or care what it was that you didn't understand. I stand by it, probably. If it's a big deal, dig it up for me and I'll re-explain.

Nah, you have made so many dumb comment since then, I'm getting a bit overwhelmed.

Ah, sounds handy. You must think you caught me in a lie then. You should patent this groupthinking method, invent a new type of lie detector based on it.

Do you know what "groupthink" means? Because you just used it wrong.

I never meant to say that, sorry. Just all thinking you deem "conspiracy theory."

Apology accepted.

So you've said almost nothing except about enforcing your made-up definition of sniper, which I'm using.

I didn't make it up.

And you are starting forward from a blank slate of total objectivity, right?

Pretty much, yes. I mean, I'm biased towards thinking you're a conspiracy theorist and thus your statements require closer scrutiny than other people, but I'd say this has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No, I don't forget that. To me evidence (clues, indications, whatever you call it) isn't proof mainly because it could be consistent with other things.

But when enough things consistent with A keep appearing, and the other explanation is that also-consistent B and C and coincidentally D and E all happened, just to make sure A can't be true ... the more logical choice is A is true, and that's why so many points of evidence consistent with it keep appearing.

No, you see, you're misusing logic here. What you are doing is looking for evidence for a pre-conceived conclusion and ignoring the fact that the evidence you find can show other things as well.

I could, thanks.

You should, if you want any credibility in your "video analysis".

There's a reason for that - you can't see far.

I can see your posts here, and the videos you've linked. That's far enough.

It wouldn't be a "realization" for me to claim I can't analyze video. For you, yes. You're pretty bad. You start from a preconceived notion I must be wrong, and then just fail in place, tossing out disconnected "maybes." (see way below...)

Now, this is just a "I know you are but what am I" argument. Kind of childish. Why don't you take responsibility for the fact that you are not qualified for the work you pretend to be doing?

If it blames Yanukovych and Putin, you won't. I guarantee that.

Are you a mind reader too?

Those letters you typed must have some real value to someone.

It was in English, so it should have meaning to you.

Ah. Well, the mods don't keep bringing it up like you, harping on me like a puppy in housebreaking to "learn what I did wrong." So I figured either you were fairly upset about it, or were just trying to oppose and annoy me in every conceivable way. Thanks for clarifying that.

I just think you should know what you did wrong, as you started making hyperbolic "apologies" about things that weren't relevant to why your posts were moved.

 

[uke2se]

Uke2se attempted video analysis - to note up front, he (right?) is not a qualified expert, or claiming to be. As the one with an issue about qualifications, it should be presumed his assessment here is of a "low confidence" sort.

Again for comparison, here's the video with enhancements.

Why don't you note that you're not qualified either?

At least I can tell you spent a few seconds looking at it before you started giggling. Honestly, that's more than I expected.

The yellow armband is generally taken as a sign of Berkut, at least on that day, but maybe it's riot police with the same band, whatever - some kind of authorities, leaving the scene. You're sure that whatever caliber gun at whatever range and with their helmets and armor, if shots were towards them they would be running full tilt. I'm not so sure; they might, and they might not if they don't need to. Point taken, but it doesn't seem like much.

Do note they're not strolling away. This is what I'd call a brisk trot. "Jogging" sounds silly, so I'll have a bit of fun with it.

Amd, at the outset, you acknowledge those could be bullet impacts at the barricade they're leaving. So logically, this could be just the speed they'd adopt when fleeing those bullets. So ... no big disagreement yet, right?

The big disagreement is that you assert that they are running away from sniper fire. For one, it's the word "sniper" again. You can't tell from the video if they are under fire, let alone under sniper fire. That whole section of the video is you taking your pre-conceived conclusion (that snipers fired at the police/Berkut) and inserting it on a video that isn't clear about anything. It's dishonest.

First, "sniper fire" meaning, for you, gunfire from a probably elevated and likely concealed position.

How do you know the gunfire comes from an elevated or a concealed position?

the "smoke" or dust looks to me like sand from a bag that was hit.

Looks to you, meaning, could be anything. You are making an assessment that you're not qualified to make.

It's got direction to it,(0:18), and the second one seen also is (0:24). That second one, actually seems to have a second puff suggesting a third hit or whatever it is. Maybe it's not impacts. You could be right here.

Yes, I'm right.

The thing about a video is it's a recording of an event, and events unfold by actual logic. Real events are not strings of "maybes" lumped together. I have a logical narrative that explains everything we see. Let's see what you could have, so far.

Here's an alternate, equally plausible narrative:

The Berkut guys got orders to relocate to another street, so they jog away. Their mates are keeping up fire against the protesters' lines, causing the puffs of smoke we see as they discharge their weapons.

One of their Berkut (snipers, would it be?) is laying down behind the barricade, shooting in whatever direction, maybe hitting their own sandbags repeatedly.
Maybe he's drunk.

I never said it was a sniper. Why does he have to hit his sandbags? You see a puff of smoke that could be coming from the barrel of a gun.

The others are just jogging, since they're clearly in no danger, probably for the president's Berkut fitness program. This guy has their back. They're doing big laps, since they don't seem to ever come back to this spot. The gunman stays, and that's him we see with the helmet. Might be Steven Seagal, sent in by Putin to help shape these guys up.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

"Sniper" was not the best word for him, even in pre-UKE2se-definition days. I thought it looked like a possible scope ... but you know, you made me double-check. And coincidentally, I might well be wrong on that part, and it was the more interesting part.

I sure didn't see a scope.

I was "zoomed in" too far and didn't zoom back. The original video (9:16 or so) almost helps more. The "pursuing gunman" (never did see a sign of movement) is there as the Berkut flee - was he shooting at them from five feet away before they started running? Possible... He then seems to duck from the fire/as the firing happens, before the helmet pops up that I noticed, in between bobbing around (getting a bead on his targets, or a weird type of hyper-ducking?). In fact, a puff appears near his head right before he ducks. Is he shooting and getting shot at? I can't time any particular shots to an action of his - But still that looks a bit like a rifle scope raising, hunching, aiming posture, if he were facing their way, as he seems to be...

I suspect even a true expert would have a hard time here, but probably less so. I'll see if one can help.

It's amazing that you need this much prodding to seek the help of an actual expert. All the while, your conspiracy video is up on Youtube making all kinds of ridiculous claims that even you now admit are probably wrong.

Absolutely amazing.

 

[catsmate]

As I've said, I don't know my weapons details. So I'll just defer to you here. Considering what else I have, I'm left thinking this was a smaller caliber hit.

So you admit you haven't got the knowledge to support your assertion but continue with it?

Yeah, I understand. A silly question as follow up then: Does the good doctor know the difference between wounds inflicted with an AK, and those inflicted with a "sniper rifle"?

Without a bullet, no. It could be 7,62x39, 7.62x54 or 5.45x39. Or something else.

Why can't the doctor use the word "Sniper" when referring to riflemen "sniping" with AKs?

Indeed. The AK family aren't particular accurate, and are intended for ranges of up to 300m, but they're not that inaccurate.

Part of the problem you're having resullts from your imprecise use of the term "sniper" to refer to any gunman who shoots from an elevated position. Police and miltary folks use "snipers" or "sniper teams" to provide "long range precision small arms fire and covert surveillance" (definition as per Canadian Manual on the Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle).

Precision fire is more than just shooting to hit the target - it entails target selection as well - and the shooting at the Maidan appears to be somewhat indiscriminate in selection. By that I mean that the effects of the shooting did not actually achieve any tactical aim for anyone. At best, what you have is not a sniper, but a gunman shooting.

I suspect the term is being used (incorrectly) for any deliberately aimed fire, rather than the ill-aimed burst of automatic gunfire.

The next part I have trouble with is any doctor looking at a wound and declaring it to be from "sniper fire" - why you ask? Because the wound channel from a precision shot differs from a random shot not a jot.

Indeed. With a bullet you might be able to make such an assertion. But even then it's dubious without detailed examination; a 7.62x54 round (for example) could have been fired from an SVD or a PK.