Ukraine sniping problem...

[uke2se]

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



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

The Guardian

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

So you repeat the same assertion - the assertion which was responded to in Spin0's post - and repeat the same out of context quote. Typical.

 

[TheRealnz]

So you repeat the same assertion - the assertion which was responded to in Spin0's post - and repeat the same out of context quote. Typical.

Spin0 quoted a direct quote from Paet which I said was an obvious walkback from his comments. I responded with a direct quote from one of the doctors on the scene regarding the same type of bullets used.

 

[Caustic Logic]

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



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

The Guardian

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

Welcome to what some consider the HAHAHA IT'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!! forum.

I love this common dismissal of the type of mental construct referred to. "Rumor." That's not the actual word used, but "stronger and stronger understanding" is basically a total synonym. Right?

Appeal to dictionary definition (I hear this is a fallacy, so why does it win here?):
: the knowledge and ability to judge a particular situation or subject

: an informal agreement

: a willingness to understand people's behavior and forgive them
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/understanding

Meaning 3? Hope not. Meaning 2? No. Meaning 1? Yes. Behind the scenes, the EU would rather not have you know, Ukrainians were having more and more knowledge of and ability to judge that the opposition brought themselves to power with those snipers, rather than it being a retarded gift from the "regime."

Corporate media "Skeptics" and word meaning - it's not a healthy relationship.

 

[IDB87]

ETA: oops, deleted a part. You saw that in a different video? Sounds interesting

The video in question. Start around the 8:25 mark - it focuses on, seemingly, a running gun battle between armed protesters, who take shelter in Hotel, with the "Those are cops" comment appearing around the 8:45 mark.

... there was also a column of 50 police, captured, marched through the Maidan to some commandeered building. Maybe that's what they exclaimed about? But this was also about 1 PM, I think, so any timeline problem is the same ...

I believe the police you refer to where captured in the AM. Or at least before the serious shooting started. The below has an embedded video of footage of some captured police being marched along in Protester controlled areas on the 20th with no shooting. I believe I see the hotel Ukraine at around the 20 second mark? Not sure.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26282425

Anyways, we can place armed militants in the hotel before the 12:30-1pm shootings on I street, in response to an escalating use of force from the police. No one seems to doubt that both sides were shooting at each other at that point.

October palace was overrun late morning, correct? Do we know how the police/protester lines were drawn up prior to the 12:30-1pm shooting? I'm curious about police presence on Mykhalia street, especially in and around the Cabinet of Ministers. A police sniper on the hill west of Mykhalia, or in any of those buildings beyond October Palace (which flank I street) could account for the awkward angles you take as coming from the Hotel Ukraine. The exposed flank of an advancing enemy would be a pretty appealing target for a sniper, especially if they're pinned down from the front by elements we know were there, who were armed, and allowed to use live ammo.

 

[Caustic Logic]

IDB87, hey ... will respond later.

ETA quick response - I caught that later, in that video. Great video to have stumbled across. That's the same scene in the elevator lobby. I don't know really if this interpretation is right, but having seen it, okay. On the cops, I have timeline entries saying about 1:00 they were marched en masse to the electric building or some such. This all could be morning, I don't know...
ETA 2: I forgot what the significance of that issue was...


Before I run to work a quick add in favor of the Berku/regime killers theory. Here's an actual tweeted photo, I guess from some overrun police HQ. "#euromaidan They found some police training targets." According to the extremely clear symbols on the orange vests strapped over the targets (and punctured by bullets with fairly good aim, it seems), they were training to target: press, medics, Ukrainian patriots, the Euro/EU. That's according to this (art installation? Actual alleged evidence?) The Putin regime will be lurking, gray and vile, behind this.

 

[IDB87]

ETA quick response - I caught that later, in that video. Great video to have stumbled across. That's the same scene in the elevator lobby. I don't know really if this interpretation is right, but having seen it, okay. On the cops, I have timeline entries saying about 1:00 they were marched en masse to the electric building or some such. This all could be morning, I don't know...

I haven't found a single source that knows definitively how many were captured, where they were captured from, when, or where they were deposited. One article says they were being held in city hall, you say the electric building. Same say 20, instead of 67. Too much info to sort through. Whose reliable, in this case? Do we have any names? Ranks? Measurements? Etc.

ETA 2: I forgot what the significance of that issue was...

We were trying to timestamp the AK and the Air rifle as being in the hotel lobby before the 12:30-1pm shooting, during, or after. Police activity at this point seems important. If an element of local police was advancing down I street (after having engaged armed militants), the lobby militants could be entering the elevator in order to get to a better position against the advancing police, rather than setting up a false-flag shop.

Spent a lot of time on this tonight. Taking a break for a few days. Will see what comes up.

 

[TheRealnz]

So you repeat the same assertion - the assertion which was responded to in Spin0's post - and repeat the same out of context quote. Typical.

So I welcome yourself and the others to challenge what I posted in response to Spin0 who doesn't look to be active for the last few weeks.

 

[uke2se]

So I welcome yourself and the others to challenge what I posted in response to Spin0 who doesn't look to be active for the last few weeks.

Sure thing. It has already been challenged, if you had taken the time to read the thread.

A doctor says the wounds were similar. Is she able to determine if a wound came from a sniper rifle or something else? Is she able to determine if the wounds were caused by the same weapon? Doesn't there need to be a forensic investigation to make those determinations? Has such an investigation been conducted? Where are the printed results?

Basically, the doctor making a remark about wounds she has treated means nothing whatsoever.

 

[Caustic Logic]

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

Yep. Sounds like a sniper battle. The hotel did take some hits to its backside. Several were reported right about 1:00, hitting journalists' windows.

It's not certain, but logical to presume those were security forces firing back. The distance of firing is not clear. The immediate area was at least partly cleared of police and Berkut, totally it seems, but they held plenty buildings a block or two out. If the range was great enough, they'd have a line to the upper floors of the hotel, but not down onto the people in the massacre area.

Recall that I'm already on the record speculating that at least one firing direction besides the hotel was staffed by an allied false-flag sniper. I'm seeing signs now of at least one other, on the roof of the metro station. He apparently kills three in a row (16:40-17:00 in the 41-minute video) I'll be back with details on that.

Interesting thing about that: A former Berkut sniper with Parubiy's self-defense team at the Hotel Ukraine told a Reuters reporter he witnessed just that.

The marksman responsible for the three deaths which Roman saw was located on a roof of a metro station further up the hill, he said. He thus had a clear line of sight down into the protest zone and the sprawling Independence Square, citadel of revolt, beyond.

The last part is incorrect, obviously. He'd have a clear line down to the people pinned down right by the station. The only clear problem is the one shooting of these three that we can call is through the heart, from the upper back, not through the head or neck. So maybe he's describing a different sequence, or whatever.

None of their guys at the hotel took that sniper out, that gets mentioned. He'd be wide open to it, from, say, the 14th floor. Or 11th. But former sniper Roman makes it sound like "self-defense" had no such capability, mentioning no snipers or shooting from the hotel, from either side. That imbalance in his story, to me, sticks out as kind of suspect.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yep. Sounds like a sniper battle. The hotel did take some hits to its backside. Several were reported right about 1:00, hitting journalists' windows.

If you are going to use terms, use them correctly.

A "sniper battle" does not refer to lots of marksmen taking shots at non-snipers. The term "sniper battle" is a synonym for "sniper duel" or "counter-sniper operations." These terms refer to the use of your own snipers to take out the snipers of the opposing force. What you are describing is just lots of shooting.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The video in question. Start around the 8:25 mark - it focuses on, seemingly, a running gun battle between armed protesters, who take shelter in Hotel, with the "Those are cops" comment appearing around the 8:45 mark.

Of course. I don't suppose it's really crucial either way - this could be any time, and these guys still don't seem secretive enough to be true false-flag snipers (but who knows really?) I suspect they were going up there for shooting cops, primarily if not totally, as long as they were still around, which it sounds like. (civilian-shooting snipers who looked like this, and were sloppy, were seen only once, in the sunset incident. That could just be some dumb-ass deputizing himself to be part of the cool sniper team, for all we know, and not a glimpse of the real thing.)

My guess is this video is before noon, by a good margin, when cops were still in force - I think they were captured and cleared out before noon, before the Berkut nearby were tackled and also chased back limping.

I believe the police you refer to where captured in the AM. Or at least before the serious shooting started. The below has an embedded video of footage of some captured police being marched along in Protester controlled areas on the 20th with no shooting. I believe I see the hotel Ukraine at around the 20 second mark? Not sure.

Yeah, most would be. And I was wrong even about the marching thing - that was pre-noon too. BBC
11:30 (Kiev time) - Journalist Christopher Miller in Kiev tweets: "More than 50 captured police led inside the energy building next door to city hall pic.twitter.com/KUKEnERFQU

Cool, no controversy here.

Anyways, we can place armed militants in the hotel before the 12:30-1pm shootings on I street, in response to an escalating use of force from the police. No one seems to doubt that both sides were shooting at each other at that point.

Well, former sniper Roman at the Hotel downplays it at least, besides whoever else ... but in normal reportage, no controversy.

October palace was overrun late morning, correct?

Within a minute or three of 12:25, as documented on video with the lawn clock. I think it's: initial surge 12:15 chasing back a police line, an instant Berkut push-back, a 12:22 renewed surge, 12:25-26 retreat under gun and grenade attack, insurgent control as of then.

Do we know how the police/protester lines were drawn up prior to the 12:30-1pm shooting?

I only know three barricades, one at the palace, taken, one at the metro, one just past, with big blocks.

I'm curious about police presence on Mykhalia street, especially in and around the Cabinet of Ministers. A police sniper on the hill west of Mykhalia, or in any of those buildings beyond October Palace (which flank I street) could account for the awkward angles you take as coming from the Hotel Ukraine.

Not unless I had it way wrong. That would be an opposite line of fire, ahead and to the left instead of behind and right. But ... another critic of the rebel story has holes, not dents in the ironic kid's shield, like you said and I disagreed. His video is better than my copy, and he might be right. See 7:08, the narration probably won't help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLxSlq_hJu8

That line of fire, he thinks, points to the nearby "club of ministers," very close. Ground level? Easy spot for a rebel sniper in the just-cleared area to take up for a few minutes... it's roughly the same angle I already decided on, 10:00 off the street (more like 11 here) maybe the same line, or similar, from two different snipers, or a single mobile one.

The exposed flank of an advancing enemy would be a pretty appealing target for a sniper, especially if they're pinned down from the front by elements we know were there, who were armed, and allowed to use live ammo.

Nah, no straightforward strategic thinking can explain this, I agree with the opposition there. They should, I think by precedent even here, shoot them in the legs at most and send them back. Pinning down unarmed people and picking them off like this without mercy, you do that to be evil.

Cool thought, thanks.

 

[Border Reiver]

None of their guys at the hotel took that sniper out, that gets mentioned. He'd be wide open to it, from, say, the 14th floor. Or 11th. But former sniper Roman makes it sound like "self-defense" had no such capability, mentioning no snipers or shooting from the hotel, from either side. That imbalance in his story, to me, sticks out as kind of suspect.

There are a number of non-suspect reasons why the person you are describing as "former sniper Roman" doesn't mention shooting from the Hotel:

a. He's unaware of a clear line of sight to the other sniper;
b. He's been instructed not to talk about it in the interests of operational security (ie. why let the other side know that that site can be suppressed easily);
c. He's aware of having line of sight, but the equipment at his disposal is inadequate to taking out the other shooter (for example that air rifle would have range of about 25m, etc.);
etc.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If you are going to use terms, use them correctly.

A "sniper battle" does not refer to lots of marksmen taking shots at non-snipers. The term "sniper battle" is a synonym for "sniper duel" or "counter-sniper operations." These terms refer to the use of your own snipers to take out the snipers of the opposing force. What you are describing is just lots of shooting.

Sorry, the article called the police shooters snipers, the others armed protesters. By the casual definition "One who shoots at other people from a concealed place" I figured both could be called that here. But I apologize for my sloppiness.

Rather, this sounds like marksmen shooting at each other from concealed places. There was fire both ways.

ETA: why do you never call out Uke2se for describing the Berkut marksman on the lawn as a "verified sniper?"

There are a number of non-suspect reasons why the person you are describing as "former sniper Roman" doesn't mention shooting from the Hotel

Yes, and those are good ones. There are probably even more out there.

There are Also suspect reasons. There may be less of them, but those interest me more.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yes, and those are good ones. There are probably even more out there.

There are Also suspect reasons. There may be less of them, but those interest me more.

The suspect reasons may be more interesting, but it is intellectually dishonest not to consider the non-suspect reasons, and to look at where the evidence as a whole takes you.

 

[uke2se]

None of their guys at the hotel took that sniper out, that gets mentioned. He'd be wide open to it, from, say, the 14th floor. Or 11th. But former sniper Roman makes it sound like "self-defense" had no such capability, mentioning no snipers or shooting from the hotel, from either side. That imbalance in his story, to me, sticks out as kind of suspect.

Well, obviously it does, because you have already decided that there were snipers at the hotel. Any evidence to the contrary is obviously false.

 

[TheRealnz]

Sure thing. It has already been challenged, if you had taken the time to read the thread.

A doctor says the wounds were similar. Is she able to determine if a wound came from a sniper rifle or something else? Is she able to determine if the wounds were caused by the same weapon? Doesn't there need to be a forensic investigation to make those determinations? Has such an investigation been conducted? Where are the printed results?

Basically, the doctor making a remark about wounds she has treated means nothing whatsoever.

Pretty sure doctors that are familiar with gun shot wounds are able to determine the caliber, bullet type (fmj, hollowpoint, ball ammo, etc) and from the wound characteristics be able to tell rough distances of where the shots came from.

Forensics would give you a weapon type, ammo brand, etc.


You can't realistically expect the wound characteristics to be the same between an ak74, an mosin nagant, an ak 74, or a dragunov.

Even with two same model weapons, a different ammo load will have different wound characteristics.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, obviously it does, because you have already decided that there were snipers at the hotel. Any evidence to the contrary is obviously false.

I said no snipers or shooting from the hotel. Are you denying there was opposition shooting from the hotel? No. Well, he tries to make it sound like there was none.

The omission of a key fact, regardless of your word game implications, is what's suspect here.

ETA: And that the omission is by a "former sniper" who was with Parubiy's self-defense team at the hotel is what makes it so interesting, considering my theory about snipers at the hotel who would hide stuff from us. These were organized by Parubiy's self-defense team in his office there, according to Yakymenko (grain of salt).

 

[Caustic Logic]

Pretty sure doctors that are familiar with gun shot wounds are able to determine the caliber, bullet type (fmj, hollowpoint, ball ammo, etc) and from the wound characteristics be able to tell rough distances of where the shots came from.

That does sound possible. It probably all depends on the detail of the examination and obviously recovery of bullets/rounds.

There's a point made, maybe over-made, but I've taken it on-board somewhat, that you can't really tell. As evidence, they cite how she said that later. But of course, what she said later was under the shadow of being named as someone blaming the new government and its neo-Nazi thug allies of mass-murder. So, she says publicly, something like "no I didn't say that, you can't tell, I don't have any data or proof that's worth killing or threatening me over."

Forensics would give you a weapon type, ammo brand, etc.

No word yet that I've heard, from the new government's investigators.

You can't realistically expect the wound characteristics to be the same between an ak74, an mosin nagant, an ak 74, or a dragunov.

Even with two same model weapons, a different ammo load will have different wound characteristics.

(As a non-expert) these sound like good points to counter the dismissal of all this under the category "who knows/rumors/regime prob'ly did it." There are details to how reliable this is/might be that might've been overlooked. So, thanks.

That said, it is still kind of ambiguous and lacks all specifics, so it can only go so far, and there are other interesting aspects of this you could help develop. Eh?

 

[catsmate]

Pretty sure doctors that are familiar with gun shot wounds are able to determine the caliber, bullet type (fmj, hollowpoint, ball ammo, etc) and from the wound characteristics be able to tell rough distances of where the shots came from.

You might want to actually study (rather than relying on CSI repeats) before making such claims.
A bullet wound, sans projectile, is a hole.
As for determining distance from a bullet wound, just how would that work?

Forensics would give you a weapon type, ammo brand, etc.

No it wouldn't. Again you seem to be basing your claims on an utter lack of actual knowledge (quite common in this thread). Even if your have an intact bullet that's all you have; rifling characteristics (assuming they're available) can tell you a manufacturer (maybe) of the weapon.
A spent casing can tell you the weapon and something about the ammunition. Not really much use when pretty much everyone is using similar weapons and ammunition, manufactured in the same plants.

You can't realistically expect the wound characteristics to be the same between an ak74, an mosin nagant, an ak 74, or a dragunov.

Yes actually I can, because I understand firearm ballistics to a far greater degree than you.
Now I assume one of your duplicate references to 'ak 74' was actually to the AK/AKM family so you've three different ammunition calibres; 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR. A wound caused by the two 7.62mm rounds will appear quite similar, unless a bullet is available. Even then both the SVD and Mosin have similar rifling (1:9.5 4RH) as do several machine guns firing that round.

Even with two same model weapons, a different ammo load will have different wound characteristics.

Different bullet designs and weights, yes; however in the actual scenario the weapons and ammunition are common, ubiquitous, designs.

 

[Border Reiver]

Pretty sure doctors that are familiar with gun shot wounds are able to determine the caliber, bullet type (fmj, hollowpoint, ball ammo, etc) and from the wound characteristics be able to tell rough distances of where the shots came from.

For the record - FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) and ball are the same type of projectile type, namely a projectile where the core is completely surrounded by a copper-nickel jacket. It has been the standard for military ammunition since the late 19th century (I think since the Hague Convention of 1899).

To the best of my knowledge, unless there is gunpowder residue around the entry wound there is no way to tell distance from the wound characteristics, and all that they can determine is "close enough for powder residue".