Ukraine sniping problem...

[Border Reiver]

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?

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

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

If that group is taking fire, it is being remarkably blase about it - no flinching, no attempts to present a smaller target by crouching, no dispersion. If there had been fire directed at this location, it wasn't shown in this video - none of the people shown in it are reacting in a manner consistent with the normal reactions to such an event.

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.

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

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.

The person you note behind the sandbags doesn't appear to be shooting. whether he's lying down or not is impossible to tell, but he is definitely staying under cover. The video is not clear enough to determine if this person has a weapon and if so of what sort - all the video shows is a blurry object. It is probable that this person is manning an observation post of some sort, but without further information its all speculation.

The rest are being redeployed.

Given the overall demeanor of the people, I would say that this video does not depict any shots.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Border Reiver, thanks. Sounds reasonable. I'm reconsidering the whole thing, so it helps. The evacuation does seem related to all the gunnfire though, doesn't it? Maybe not running from immediate bullets, but preparing to avoid whatever's coming maybe?

UKE, have you noticed yet the dictionary definition of sniper? You didn't respond to the two definitions I've posted twice each, either time, as you insist my definition (theirs) is made up, while yours (made up) is real.

I'm left with little choice but to decide this was all a long-running game to you, to annoy me. I'm done with it. Yes, I'm making a sniper case, with the proper word to describe elevated gunmen firing from concealed positions with any deadly rifle. The word is sniper. Ancient shelf dictionary def:
"A soldier who, from some unsuspected place of concealment, picks off those of the enemy that expose themselves to his fire." That's it. Hidden, any kind iof gun. Not on the lawn with a proper sniper rifle. But I can go with that as a sniper too.
Trying to minimize your objections is completely futile, as you still insist, after all this effort,

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.

WTF. You did not. You showed that by your made-up definition they're not. I never did say or imply the rifle must be sniper. I did not lie. I just played your stupid semantics game too long. And you still didn't even know my main point I've been making every post? False flag, makes you giggle. Good for you.

 

[uke2se]

Border Reiver, thanks. Sounds reasonable. I'm reconsidering the whole thing, so it helps. The evacuation does seem related to all the gubnfire though, doesbn't it? Maybe not running from immediate bullets, but preparing to avoid whatever's coming maybe?

Why do you call it an "evacuation" as opposed to a "relocation"? And no, I don't think any gunfire (which isn't noticeable on the video anyway) is related to their relocation, and if it is, the video doesn't show it.

UKE, have you noticed yet the dictionary definition of sniper? You didn't respond to the two definitions I've posted twice each, either time, as you insist my definition (theirs) is made up, while yours (made up) is real.

You can read all about snipers here. In short, a sniper is a military role that requires training and specialized equipment.

It appears you are using the casual definition of a sniper, and then applying it erroneously. You would be better off by simply saying "shooter" if you don't really know what you're talking about with the word "sniper".

I'm left with little choice but to decide this was all a long-running game to you, to annoy me. I'm done with it. Yes, I'm making a sniper case, with the proper word to describe elevated gunmen firing from concealed positions with any deadly rifle. The word is sniper. Ancient shelf dictionary def:
"A soldier who, from some unsuspected place of concealment, picks off those of the enemy that expose themselves to his fire." That's it. Hidden, any kind iof gun. Not on the lawn with a proper sniper rifle. But I can go with that as a sniper too.
Trying to minimize your objections is completely futile, as you still insist, after all this effort,

Argument by dictionary definition.

You already admitted that the two people in the elevator aren't snipers. You've already admitted that the Berkut soldier on the lawn with a sniper rifle is a sniper. We are talking about the military definition of a sniper here, or the term is meaningless, and I suspect you use it simply because of it's sinister connotation. That's dishonest.

WTF. You did not.

Yes, I did.

You showed that by your made-up definition they're not.

I showed you that by the military definition - which is the one that matters here - they're not.

I never did say or imply the rifle must be sniper. I did not lie.

Yes, you did. By using the term sniper, you invoke a picture of a concealed individual picking people off with a long-range, optically enhanced weapon. If you were talking about people shooting regular weapons from behind cover, you would have said "gunmen", or "soldiers", or "armed insurgents" or any of a whole slew of other words. You didn't. You elected to call them "snipers" because that word had been used in media coverage concerning the deaths of people from Berkut sniper fire, and you wanted to link your conspiracy theory to that. This is highly dishonest.

I just played your stupid semantics game too long. And you still didn't even know my main point I've been making every post? False flag, makes you giggle. Good for you.

I do know your main point. It's crap.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And Catsmate - you're looking bad in another thread, and you know which one. That's the only argument front I intend to have open with you.

 

[uke2se]

And Catsmate - you're looking bad in another thread, and you know which one. That's the only argument front I intend to have open with you.

You're looking bad in every thread, Caustic Logic. The forum frowns upon importing arguments from other threads into a thread where they don't belong.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You can read all about snipers here. In short, a sniper is a military role that requires training and specialized equipment.

A sniper is a highly trained marksman who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel.

A guy splayed out on the lawn, again, is in a concealed position right? That's why we have "verified" Berkut snipers, because snipers usually get seen and verified, right? As the word is usually (casually) used ("they say there's a sniper up in that minaret, but I didn't see any fire...")

And again a special "sniper rifle" is specified as required. Oh, except it's not.

Snipers typically have highly selective and specialized training and use high-precision/special application rifles and optics, and often have sophisticated communication assets to feed valuable combat information back to their units.

It helps. Three others make no mention.

Even when you finally do link to an external ref to support your definition, it fails. That's 4/4 against your definition, and about 3.5/4 for my "shooters" fitting the bill for most people. I'm done with the games. Call your Berkut marksmen whatever you like. I don't care and won't complain. It's just a friggin' term, even if it's the wrong one. The sniper murderers hiding in the hotel, I feel like calling snipers now. Complain and call the made-up definitions police all you like.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, you did. By using the term sniper, you invoke a picture of a concealed individual picking people off with a long-range, optically enhanced weapon.

In this image I invoked, what color hat is he wearing? I want to make sure you're actually getting the one I sent out, not just making it up.

ETA: To clarify a concealed individual picking people off with a gun is what most people call a sniper and what I meant. You can imagine whatever you like about what secret weapon details I was trying to invoke without even speaking them. Nuclear uranium rounds, whatever. Have a ball making up lies you're sure I've told.

 

[uke2se]

A guy splayed out on the lawn, again, is in a concealed position right? That's why we have "verified" Berkut snipers, because snipers usually get seen and verified, right? As the word is usually (casually) used ("they say there's a sniper up in that minaret, but I didn't see any fire...")

Yes, a person with a sniper rifle laying down on a ridge is considered to be in a concealed position.

And again a special "sniper rifle" is specified as required. Oh, except it's not.



It helps. Three others make no mention.

Grasping at straws.

Even when you finally do link to an external ref to support your definition, it fails. That's 4/4 against your definition, and about 3.5/4 for my "shooters" fitting the bill for most people. I'm done with the games. Call your Berkut marksmen whatever you like. I don't care and won't complain. It's just a friggin' term, even if it's the wrong one. The sniper murderers hiding in the hotel, I feel like calling snipers now. Complain and call the made-up definitions police all you like.

Yes, I'm going to keep calling you out on using the term wrongly. You made no attempt to actually understand what a sniper is, and simply made a semantic argument. The people in the elevator aren't snipers by any definition, nor do you have any reason to expect them to be on their way to become snipers. The Berkut soldier on the ridge is a sniper by every definition.

Your continued use of the word "sniper" is of course important for your conspiracy theory, as without it, you lose any connection to the media reports that talk about snipers and sniper fire. I understand that you're going to continue this dishonest charade, but I and others will be here to call you out on it all along.

Carry on.

 

[uke2se]

In this image I invoked, what color hat is he wearing? I want to make sure you're actually getting the one I sent out, not just making it up.

Another appeal to ridicule. You're really pushing out those logical fallacies today, aren't you?

 

[uke2se]

Caustic Logic, let's play my version of "spot the sniper" for a bit, shall we?

Are these men snipers?

How about these men?

This guy?

These guys?

 

[Caustic Logic]

No. Rather, I'm going to get some sleep now, and Firday and over the weekend, stay on and develop the subject. I'll let you play word games with whoever's inclined to play with you.

Let me just say ... I highly doubt you had any problem with the S-word batted around casually to describe the "Yanukovych regime" killers the corporate media parroted to you. But as soon as it's alleged, with evidence (normal definition, not whatever yours is) that these snipers were on the other side - suddenly you get all snippy about semantics, in a what might be a desperate attempt to cut the sinister implications. Oh no, those are just "armed protesters," who probably shot all those people behind the hotel on accident, due to lack of proper sniper training and enhanced scopes...

But the marksman "concealed" on a "ridge" IS a sniper ... and coincidentally, he works for the "Yanukovych regime" and helps you suggest the completely different MO killers, shooting from inside a place secured by the opposition, are probably the same "verified Berkut snipers," the only snipers around, in your carefully tended sniper garden.

Convenient, huh? You're on record too.

 

[uke2se]

Let me just say ... I highly doubt you had any problem with the S-word batted around casually to describe the "Yanukovych regime" killers the corporate media parroted to you.

Considering the fact that the "corporate media" presented evidence of their assertions, no I didn't have a problem with it.

But as soon as it's alleged, with evidence (normal definition, not whatever yours is) that these snipers were on the other side - suddenly you get all snippy about semantics, in a what might be a desperate attempt to cut the sinister implications.

There's nothing sudden about it. If the "corporate media" had attempted to pass off two guys in an elevator armed with an air rifle and an AK-47 as "snipers", I would have been equally "snippy".

Oh no, those are just "armed protesters," who probably shot all those people behind the hotel on accident, due to lack of proper sniper training and enhanced scopes...

You haven't been able to prove that they shot them at all. In fact, using your methods, you can't prove it.

But the marksman "concealed" on a "ridge" IS a sniper ... and coincidentally, he works for the "Yanukovych regime" and helps you suggest the completely different MO killers, shooting from inside a place secured by the opposition, are probably the same "verified Berkut snipers," the only snipers around, in your carefully tended sniper garden.

I never did suggest that. I am merely saying that the only verified snipers worked for Berkut. I don't know what killed every single victim that day, and nor do you. I do know that most people were killed during clashes with Berkut and riot-police.

Convenient, huh? You're on record too.

Heck yes, I'm on record. I'm glad for it. You probably aren't, though, considering the many blunders you've made thus far.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Your record changed slightly. This morning you said there were already 100 dead by the 20th, with only another 60-70 killed that day. This was a basis for deciding the sniper massacre barely mattered. I see you corrected your mistake to reflect that around 100 was the total death toll (including 15 police, a few heart attacks, and a kid who got ill and died after going home), including at least 34 protesters on the 20th, of whom about 20 (?) were massacred at once, behind the hotel, with lines of fire mainly coming from the hotel.

So changing that flawed math you were basing things on should change your calculus on the importance of this massacre, which you've just downplayed in one spot, and earlier said the details of it only matters to me and a few CTists.

But I'm sure it won't change anything. You triumphantly know everything, even when you clearly don't. Because you're a "skeptic."

ETA: No you didn't catch you flawed math yet, sorry. It was back on page 4. Are we moving that quick?

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?

At least 20, maybe 34, sorting out. 1/3 of the dead all at once was a big deal from the news I recall reading. In your world, apparently not. Keep on minimizing/re-naming the major stuff as soon as it's in question. Your defensive straw-clutching helps illustrate that I'm getting through on some level.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Considering the fact that the "corporate media" presented evidence of their assertions, no I didn't have a problem with it.

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

There's nothing sudden about it. If the "corporate media" had attempted to pass off two guys in an elevator armed with an air rifle and an AK-47 as "snipers", I would have been equally "snippy".

BBC's Gatehouse says they came under :"sniper fire" from the hotel Ukraine by a "shooter" in a green protester helmet. The rifle was never identified. You never complained, until Istarted talking about him. He's a sniper by my definition, by the way, just like by most peoples' "non-military," "meaningless" usage, used up 'til now by everyone but you, buddy.

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

You haven't been able to prove that they shot them at all. In fact, using your methods, you can't prove it.

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

I never did suggest that. I am merely saying that the only verified snipers worked for Berkut. I don't know what killed every single victim that day, and nor do you. I do know that most people were killed during clashes with Berkut and riot-police.

Not explicitly, and I was watching for it. But you know there were snipers killing people, and you've been careful to keep that word on the Berkut alone. And your starting/ending argument is quite clear that you already and will always blame Y's Berkut snipers, as the opposition and the corporate media instructed you to do on the 20th and since. Seeing how all this lines up, it seems a subconscious strategy anyway.

Heck yes, I'm on record. I'm glad for it. You probably aren't, though, considering the many blunders you've made thus far.

No, I've only made a few blunders, really. And I learn from them, set an example for how to engage and learn. I'm fine. I know you want to say every word I type is a blunder, etc. just to be annoying. So go ahead.

 

[catsmate]

And Catsmate - you're looking bad in another thread, and you know which one. That's the only argument front I intend to have open with you.

What are you rambling on about?

You're looking bad in every thread, Caustic Logic. The forum frowns upon importing arguments from other threads into a thread where they don't belong.

Indeed. Every time reality contradicts his agenda it gets ignored.

 

[Caustic Logic]

What are you rambling on about?


Indeed. Every time reality contradicts his agenda it gets ignored.

Here - last two posts, unanswered for some reason. Relevant here too.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Indeed. Every time reality contradicts his agenda it gets ignored.

I asked you where that happened, and you said nothing, as I predicted. So, who's doing the avoiding? I'll take your answer there and even respond with extra patience - if you have the adequate and gender-appropriate gonads to defend or retract your last (and only, 'til just now) unresolved misstep regarding my record.

Thx.

What are you rambling on about?

Oh, and sorry to ramble on so long. My goodness, that would barely have fit in a Tweet (I checked - I could add the @ or the 1, but not both)

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hotel Firing: Supports

This post is to lay out a good sampling of evidence and stuff in support of gunfire from the Hotel Ukraine. As I make the case further with video and whatever else comes up, be aware that the possibility is not at all fatal to the opposition ("new government") narrative. It does add a complicating twist, but as of March 5, the relevant ministries of the new government said there was sniper fire from there. AP, March 7:

The next day (March 6?), Prosecutor General Oleh Makhntisky said officials have found sniper bullet casings on the National Bank building a few hundred yards up the hill from Maidan, the square that became the center and the symbol of the anti-government protests. He said investigators have confirmed snipers also fired from the Hotel Ukraine, directly on the square, and the House of Chimeras, an official residence next to the presidential administration building.

In this, the said snipers clearly are affiliated with the Yanukovych terror machine and/or the Russian "third force." So, that's one take, perhaps worth pursuing, in search of supporting clues.

It's also important to consider, and I have/will, the evidence for other firing locations, and to consider them altogether to get a weighting. Already I've been saying the most and deadliest/most obviously criminal and provocative, plus well-documented, comes from the hotel. I don't really have a full tally of all victims and all evidence, but a good enough start to stand by that so-far assessment. (details available upon request, etc.)

Broad scene Map with relevant areas labeled

Shooting directions graphic

People Talking About Shooting from the Hotel:
"Police said a sniper perched on a hotel roof had injured 20 officers with live ammunition fire." There aren't many hotels around where shooting came from. This must be the protester-held Ukraina.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rs-filmed-shooting-at-protesters-in-Kiev.html

2:38: In a televised statement Interior Ministry spokesman Valeri Mazan denounces the protesters: "Today, despite it being the day of mourning, despite the truce, they fire at riot police and internal military forces, targeting them with weapons since the early morning on Instytutska street. At this moment there are more than 20 injured police officers who have been taken to hospital for medical treatment."

(BBC - times adjusted to Kiev local)

(the 20 injured, same ones presumably, were shot from the hotel. See map: on Instytutska and shot from the hotel suggests the riot police/Berkut at the October Palace - this stopped when they evacuated, 12:25 AM local time)

2:46: "The armour-piercing ammunition used by snipers' "fells protesters one after another", says journalist Dmitriy Steshit, who works for Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda. He tweets from Institutska Street in central Kiev. [BBC]

(is this evidence the shooter(s) on Instytutska, meaning likely in the hotel, and/or the ones shooting towards the massacre victims, from the hotel it appears ... were what everyone here would call "a sniper?")

Commenting on reports that witnesses had seen snipers firing live ammunition during the clashes, Lidington told the BBC he had raised the issue with the ambassador, who had not been able to give a "definitive view". He said: "There should be a full and independent thorough investigation of those killings." "The people responsible for those shootings need to be held to account, wherever they come from." [BBC]

1:21: One of the three top opposition leaders in Ukraine - Arseniy Yatsenyuk - says snipers are firing at protesters from the Ukraina hotel, which dominates Independence Square. [BBC]

(It also dominates the massacre area, where most of the shooting you can trace comes along those lines of domination.)

Seen shooting from the hotel:
Where anyone is seen firing out the hotel window - not complete, just two examples for now:

Ukraine: Snipers target police in Independence Square – RuptlyTV, Feb 20, 2014

Anti-government forces armed with hunting rifles took up sniper positions in a downtown Kiev hotel on Thursday, overlooking protesters and police clashing in Maidan Square below. Police marksmen targeted gunmen appearing in the windows as the two groups exchanged live fire.

Not incriminating, really (limited hangout?). They let RT film them shooting barely-dangerous air rifles down on police, I guess, from the window.

At sunset, the fatal shooting of Volodomy Melnichuk by a gunman, as seen by BBC reporter Gabriel Gatehouse inside a window on the 11th floor, "wearing one of the protesters' green helmets" as explained in post #103 This is a criminal act of some significance by a real-life sniper, eerily like the one(s) who must have picked off al those people earlier in the day.

Supporting evidence is the various imagery and reports of men with rifles and helmets operating in the hotel that day. This can be and has been criticized as inconclusive.

Lines of fire Analysis claiming to show firing from there
Not said, not seen from the muzzle, but traceable, someone says, with visual supports you can check!

CВОИ СТРЕЛЯЛИ В СВОИХ!

This video offers significant evidence that the use of snipers on February 18, 2014, in Kiev was planned beforehand and it also shows how it was executed--by the leaders of the Maidan. Some snipers were acting from the hotel Ukraine, which was on that day seized by Maidan protesters. From the same hotel, a party of snipers fired into the back of a group of protesters who were ordered to move forward through the space covered by the camera

And what is this I just found? A longer version of the same video, or one with the same narrator? I think it says part 2.

Maidan. Inconvenient truth : shooting in the back

My videos, largely doing and finding the same as those. Can be taken one at a time.

There may some text sources (with or citing visuals) we can parse - this one - the Voronstov Study - in Ukrainian with good quality scene photos he took himself, with just Google Translate, is not one of those yet. So I'm not even sure if he's making this argument.

What might help, if anyone inclined to dig for it, would be analyses like this claiming to support the opposition opposition (mainstream, corporate, US-backed) narrative. If anyone on that side has produced any visual-evidence based analysis on firing trajectories, including or excluding the hotel, it would be good to have a look at.

To start, not fully analyzed, is the BBC's video report from Feb. 24, filed by Mr. Gatehouse with the still-unfiled report on the shooter in the hotel... anyone care to mine this for its specific supports and save me a bit of time?

Anything more scholarlly, with maps, distances, any supporting visuals, might be better yet. I intend to search more for that and other stuff, but if anyone finds it first and shares it here, all the cooler.

 

[catsmate]

Here - last two posts, unanswered for some reason. Relevant here too.

Sigh. Firstly that's not a thread as much as a monologue by you; where some others participated, early on, and refuted your claims you, as usual, ignored them.
Secondly my post was,

Well in my case it was a matter of "what's that thread about" followed rapidly by "this is just silly" and "oh not not him again", then "meh what's the point of responding with reason".
Followed now by "goodbye".

which should have made my lack of interest in participating in your pseudo-dialogue rather obvious.
Finally I did post again there, pointing out your unwillingness to engage in actual debate, but you made it clear you'd continue to avoid such.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh, just to clarify, the above is about shooting from the hotel on the 20th only, especially around the time of the sniper massacre. This seems to have spanned around 15 minutes, somewhere between 12:25 and app. 1:00 PM. (some reports specify such a time frame, and while edits make it unclear, the 41-min video seems consistent with that) There might be scattered shootings after, aside from the sunset incident. But it would be awkward - they caught their (main, early) sniper before 1:15, and to stay consistent, the shooting (except by the sleeper sniper) should stop then. I'm presuming a bit after 1:00 is the latest cut-off.

The scene map indicates in red the area where about 20 different shooting are filmed in that time - just short of the metro station. Most of those downed are closer to the sidewalk and the area where fire from either direction could explain it (if the visuals allow), but some are killed right against the low wall only reachable from a perch in the hotel.