Ukraine sniping problem...

[catsmate]

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".

Exactly.
As for expanding bullets, yes they were prohibited for international conflicts in 1899 (opposed by the UK and USA) and they're simply not produced in the same quantities as ball, at least for military calibres, so wouldn't be as available anyway.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You might want to actually study (rather than relying on CSI repeats) before making such claims.

You might want to go get a PhD in critical thinking before telling people what to do before speaking their minds. Thx.

A bullet wound, sans projectile, is a hole.
As for determining distance from a bullet wound, just how would that work?

The force it retained, maybe (did it plow clear through or stop short?) Beside length of line is which line - entry vs. exit wounds, plus known locations, could pin down sniper (marksman, armed protester) positions. Actual removed bullets of course, suggest the weapons. The size and shape of each wound, damage along the track, various clues must exist - how well each person can read it will vary. Some of the less bright might just look at it and say "it's a hole. Who friggin' knows?"

Olga wasn't a pro battlefield surgeon, AFAIK, but had treated all kinds of injuries on the Maidan for months. At least a few gunshots are certain to have passed her way. That plus whatever background knowledge gave her something she noticed and singled out - not clear what, but it was a signature to her, what Paet called "handwriting." Between what she saw in the Hotel clinic, and some how seeing what happened to the police/Berkut who were sniped by insurgents, she felt - and Paet seemed concerned, and added that "the same Olga, well all the evidence" suggests that the sign, the "handwriting," was the same in both cases. And that's part of what creates that growing understanding about what really happened.

That said, yeah there are bad readings and unwarranted leaps possible, rendering her observations moot. It's entirely possible this means northing, she can't analyze this worth spit and got all paranoid, making stuff up based on a TV show and, obviously, under emotional strain. ...

Or that her words were simply misinterpreted by that loony Paet. One could just presume these are the only possibilities. But it's not so. It's also possible she found some fairly clear "handwriting," found it across the board, and her worries, strong enough to pass on the a foreign nation's visiting FM, are the cause for concern he clearly took them for.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Are you sure a doctor can see this from a casual examination? Do you think perhaps a real examination, complete with measurements etc. would be needed? Do you think such an examination was conducted? If so, do you have any evidence for that?

 

[uke2se]

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. `

He does? That wasn't my impression.

 

[uke2se]

You might want to go get a PhD in critical thinking before telling people what to do before speaking their minds. Thx.

Why? I understand that without stating rumors and innuendos as fact, you wouldn't have much to do here, but on a forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism, if you don't check your facts when you make an assertion, you're gonna get called on it.

 

[Border Reiver]

The force it retained, maybe (did it plow clear through or stop short?) Beside length of line is which line - entry vs. exit wounds, plus known locations, could pin down sniper (marksman, armed protester) positions. Actual removed bullets of course, suggest the weapons. The size and shape of each wound, damage along the track, various clues must exist - how well each person can read it will vary. Some of the less bright might just look at it and say "it's a hole. Who friggin' knows?"

Dr. Olga would likely be able to tell entry from exit wounds and it would not be unreasonable for her to be able to get the angle of the track by sticking a probe into the wound channel, however that knowledge is worthless without the investigator knowing:

a. Where the person was at the time they were shot;
b. What was their position (sitting, standing, bent over, lying down, etc.);
c. What direction was that person facing.

Unless careful observation is made of those factors, the information you want cannot be accurately determined.

 

[catsmate]

You might want to go get a PhD in critical thinking before telling people what to do before speaking their minds. Thx.

No thanks, two doctorates is enough for me.

The force it retained, maybe (did it plow clear through or stop short?) Beside length of line is which line - entry vs. exit wounds, plus known locations, could pin down sniper (marksman, armed protester) positions. Actual removed bullets of course, suggest the weapons. The size and shape of each wound, damage along the track, various clues must exist - how well each person can read it will vary. Some of the less bright might just look at it and say "it's a hole. Who friggin' knows?"

None of this speculation in any way supports your previous claims. Saying "various clues must exist" merely demonstrates your ignorance, and your determination to persist with it.

Olga wasn't a pro battlefield surgeon, AFAIK, but had treated all kinds of injuries on the Maidan for months.

So what? No matter how experienced she may have been, and again you're engaging in your usual baseless speculation, but if the data isn't there, experience is of no use.
Further it's a huge jump form patching people up, the classic 'meatball surgery', to forensic analysis.

At least a few gunshots are certain to have passed her way. That plus whatever background knowledge gave her something she noticed and singled out - not clear what, but it was a signature to her, what Paet called "handwriting."

More baseless speculation.

Between what she saw in the Hotel clinic, and some how seeing what happened to the police/Berkut who were sniped by insurgents,

Yet more baseless speculation.

she felt - and Paet seemed concerned, and added that "the same Olga, well all the evidence" suggests that the sign, the "handwriting," was the same in both cases.

Unevidence assertion.

And that's part of what creates that growing understanding about what really happened.

Right.......... Again as long as it supports your existing theories you accept anything.

That said, yeah there are bad readings and unwarranted leaps possible, rendering her observations moot. It's entirely possible this means northing, she can't analyze this worth spit and got all paranoid, making stuff up based on a TV show and, obviously, under emotional strain. ...

Yet you base your assertions on this. And you try and lecture me on critical thinking.

Or that her words were simply misinterpreted by that loony Paet. One could just presume these are the only possibilities. But it's not so. It's also possible she found some fairly clear "handwriting," found it across the board, and her worries, strong enough to pass on the a foreign nation's visiting FM, are the cause for concern he clearly took them for.

SO you're back to ignoring any possibility that doesn't support your opinions.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No thanks, two doctorates is enough for me.

In how to say things like "baseless speculation" at random? I would totally believe that. Maybe even three degrees.

None of this speculation in any way supports your previous claims. Saying "various clues must exist" merely demonstrates your ignorance, and your determination to persist with it.

Please prove that there are not numerous signs left by a gunshot injury. My ignorance on the details of that is, indeed, reveealed by the vague language. But still I'd bet money there are clues. They may matter, so worth mentioning, and may not, as you say...

So what? No matter how experienced she may have been, and again you're engaging in your usual baseless speculation, but if the data isn't there, experience is of no use.

Fair enough, if the data isn't there. She thought she saw something, suggesting she thought the data was there. She'd know better than either of us. But you speculate she was just too dumb to know she was wrong. Is this fact, now, or your hunch?

Further it's a huge jump form patching people up, the classic 'meatball surgery', to forensic analysis.

Fair enough. As I said, she's not a battlefield surgeon, AFAIK. Or a forensic investigator.

More baseless speculation.

Who else would have treated the gunshot wounds coming through? It's based speculation.

Yet more baseless speculation.

Baseless? Did she not say, at least according to Paet, that she examined the injuries on both sides? She did! That's my base for saying she did that. = not baseless. = based.

You speculate that this is all untrue somehow, in any and all ways, or whatever. It appears supremely lazy.

Unevidence assertion.

Evidence: the call. The words in it. Did you ever get a degree in paying attention to words? Should have.

Right.......... Again as long as it supports your existing theories you accept anything.

What else do you think the "stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers it was ... someone from the new coalition" based on? Paet went and assessed it with his eyes and brain and he says there is this understanding and cites the evidence he does, and I repeated that accurately. You can't seem to do that.

Catsmate correct reading of the call: Paet: Blah blah random confused words, meaning Yanukovych did it. Ashton: Well of course!

Yet you base your assertions on this. And you try and lecture me on critical thinking.

No, I was letting you know it's annoying when you roll your eyes and tell people they should go study or get college degrees before speaking.

SO you're back to ignoring any possibility that doesn't support your opinions.

Which one did I ignore? I acknowledged it's possible she just made a bad reading, or Paet mangled her reading. What annoys me is people acting as if these are the only two possibilities, as if these two intelligent and authoritative human beings (the lead doctor saving lives on the Maidan and Estonia's Foreign Minister), neither with any prior motive to smear the new authorities, are incapable of rightly assessing what they see and hear.


I only added that maybe she was right, and he was right to worry
Are you intent on ignoring this possibility, which you downplay at avery turn? If so, it's pure coincidence of course, that this possibility you reject doesn't fit too well with your preconceived notions.

 

[LSSBB]

In how to say things like "baseless speculation" at random? I would totally believe that. Maybe even three degrees.



Please prove that there are not numerous signs left by a gunshot injury. My ignorance on the details of that is, indeed, reveealed by the vague language. But still I'd bet money there are clues. They may matter, so worth mentioning, and may not, as you say...



Fair enough, if the data isn't there. She thought she saw something, suggesting she thought the data was there. She'd know better than either of us. But you speculate she was just too dumb to know she was wrong. Is this fact, now, or your hunch?



Fair enough. As I said, she's not a battlefield surgeon, AFAIK. Or a forensic investigator.



Who else would have treated the gunshot wounds coming through? It's based speculation.



Baseless? Did she not say, at least according to Paet, that she examined the injuries on both sides? She did! That's my base for saying she did that. = not baseless. = based.

You speculate that this is all untrue somehow, in any and all ways, or whatever. It appears supremely lazy.



Evidence: the call. The words in it. Did you ever get a degree in paying attention to words? Should have.



What else do you think the "stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers it was ... someone from the new coalition" based on? Paet went and assessed it with his eyes and brain and he says there is this understanding and cites the evidence he does, and I repeated that accurately. You can't seem to do that.

Catsmate correct reading of the call: Paet: Blah blah random confused words, meaning Yanukovych did it. Ashton: Well of course!



No, I was letting you know it's annoying when you roll your eyes and tell people they should go study or get college degrees before speaking.



Which one did I ignore? I acknowledged it's possible she just made a bad reading, or Paet mangled her reading. What annoys me is people acting as if these are the only two possibilities, as if these two intelligent and authoritative human beings (the lead doctor saving lives on the Maidan and Estonia's Foreign Minister), neither with any prior motive to smear the new authorities, are incapable of rightly assessing what they see and hear.


I only added that maybe she was right, and he was right to worry
Are you intent on ignoring this possibility, which you downplay at avery turn? If so, it's pure coincidence of course, that this possibility you reject doesn't fit too well with your preconceived notions.

If you are going to use someone's opinions of wounds as evidence of a source, you're going to need to provide independent measurement system analysis of their opinion against known sources for the wounds, in order to establish solid probability of them being right. Otherwise, its just a wild guess.

 

[uke2se]

Please prove that there are not numerous signs left by a gunshot injury.

I'll quote this part and wait until you recognize the lapse in critical thinking. Obviously, you will have noticed the fault before I did, so you will have a reply cued up.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'll quote this part and wait until you recognize the lapse in critical thinking. Obviously, you will have noticed the fault before I did, so you will have a reply cued up.

Reviewed and I'm pretty sure the lapse is only in your reading. I meant to say it's true there are many signs, and my point based on that stands. Why don't you tell me what you think I got wrong and why it matters?

If you are going to use someone's opinions of wounds as evidence of a source, you're going to need to provide independent measurement system analysis of their opinion against known sources for the wounds, in order to establish solid probability of them being right.

Am I? Or else what?

Otherwise, its just a wild guess.

In the absence of clinical details and wound measurements and all that right here, by your thinking then, I took a "wild guess" she might know what she's talking about. And I'll stand by that. If it sounds like I'm over-arguing the possibility, maybe that's so. But it's to make sure the case is seen in its proper detail, not re-worded, minimized, and swept under the carpet. Because it seems like all you "skeptics" want to do is keep arguing against that possibility, and presume that she must be wrong, without any good reason, in a wild guess that there's nothing to worry about here.

For example, how so many people scoff that Paet was only talking about "rumors" making the rounds. Above Uke2se was probably referring to this again accusing me of "stating rumors and innuendos as fact."

Challenge: Uke2se, what word or phrase is it that you all keep using "rumors" as a stand-in for? It's not the word used by Paet himself. Can you tell me what it is, and why you, for one, keep finding "rumors" the best fill-in for?

If you think about it, you might realize the lapse in critical thinking involved here.

 

[Caustic Logic]

SO you're back to ignoring any possibility that doesn't support your opinions.

You say I'm "back" to something you allege (elsewhere, un-supported) I've got some history of. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you just had me mixed up with someone else. But here you say I'm doing it again, and I'm pretty sure I'm not. Can I just pin you down then to explain and back up this accusation, now that I'm paying attention and ready to learn? Put the E in JREF, eh?

I have an opinion, you say, and I'm "ignoring any possibility that doesn't support" that. This was explicitly in response to these comments:

That said, yeah there are bad readings and unwarranted leaps possible, rendering her observations moot. It's entirely possible this means northing, she can't analyze this worth spit and got all paranoid, making stuff up based on a TV show and, obviously, under emotional strain. ...

Or that her words were simply misinterpreted by that loony Paet. One could just presume these are the only possibilities. But it's not so. It's also possible she found some fairly clear "handwriting," found it across the board, and her worries, strong enough to pass on the a foreign nation's visiting FM, are the cause for concern he clearly took them for.

What possibilities did I ignore there?

ETA: In case you meant to make a big deal about it (probably not, since it's a specific, real thing) I did make sort of a logical mistake saying:

Are you intent on ignoring this possibility, which you downplay at avery turn? If so, it's pure coincidence of course, that this possibility you reject doesn't fit too well with your preconceived notions.

It's not really possible to both ignore and downplay something. So scratch ignore, replace with "downplay as much as possible." And the question is pre-answered in the yes column, so scratch that too. So now I'm the only one of us accused by the other of "ignoring any possibility," from an unspecified list of unstated possibilities, larger than the three main options I myself outlined (albeit with with minimization and maximization built-in).

 

[Caustic Logic]

I guess Avakov is done with his bizarre "third force" theory. The initial details of the Kiev cabal's investigation are out, and it's all Ukrainian, just like Moskal and the Fatherland people were insisting.

Special police shot Kiev protesters, inquiry says

Ukraine's special police shot dead dozens of anti-government protesters in Kiev in February, an initial government inquiry has found.

Interior Minister Arsen Avakov told reporters 12 members of the Berkut police had been identified as snipers, and three of them had been arrested.

At a news conference, Mr Avakov presented the initial findings of the investigation into the mass shootings that shocked Ukraine and the world.
...
Mr Avakov gave details of one particular episode where he said the inquiry had established that eight of those killed were hit by bullets from the same machine-gun.

Hm! I wonder which eight, and where they say that gun was?

He identified Maj Dmytro Sadovnyk as commander of a unit suspected of shooting dead at least 17 protesters.

The interior minister also showed a number of slides and photos illustrating where he said police snipers were firing from.

I'll have to see these alleged details.

 

[uke2se]

Reviewed and I'm pretty sure the lapse is only in your reading. I meant to say it's true there are many signs, and my point based on that stands. Why don't you tell me what you think I got wrong and why it matters?

Oh, haha, you're playing a joke on me. A critical thinker of your caliber wouldn't make such a mistake regarding burden of evidence and proving a negative.

For example, how so many people scoff that Paet was only talking about "rumors" making the rounds. Above Uke2se was probably referring to this again accusing me of "stating rumors and innuendos as fact."

Amongst other things, yes.

Challenge: Uke2se, what word or phrase is it that you all keep using "rumors" as a stand-in for? It's not the word used by Paet himself. Can you tell me what it is, and why you, for one, keep finding "rumors" the best fill-in for?

It's not a stand in. Rumors was exactly what Paet was talking about. There's also hearsay.

If you think about it, you might realize the lapse in critical thinking involved here.

Unlike you, I didn't have a lapse in critical thinking.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh, haha, you're playing a joke on me. A critical thinker of your caliber wouldn't make such a mistake regarding burden of evidence and proving a negative.

Uh, no. I didn't actually want a negative proven. It was a rhetorical request, to make/re-state a simple point.

Amongst other things, yes.



It's not a stand in.

So you think that is his wording then? Where in the call does he say that? I presumed this was your own paraphrase/characterization of his words. It seemed deceptive, considering, but if you can show where he did say that, I'll revise that and apologize.

Rumors was exactly what Paet was talking about. There's also hearsay.

Don't forget the gossip, innuendo, lies, and slander that he talked about in the call. Oh was he scathing about these pernicious falsehood swirling about him, wasn't he?

But my goodness - conspiracy theorists will just twist his words to say things like "all the evidence," "medical photos," "same bullets," "stronger and stronger understanding." Those deceptive bastards assaulting the truth! And using quotation marks to do it! Corporate media skeptics and the paraphrase repair kit to the rescue! Should be under-the-rug size again in no time!

 

[catsmate]

The initial findings of the government enquiry are out; expect them to be ignored by the usual suspects. BBC link

Ukraine's special police were behind the killings of dozens of anti-government protesters in Kiev in February, a government inquiry says.

Interior Minister Arsen Avakov told reporters 12 members of the Berkut police had been identified as snipers, and three of them had been arrested.

He presented what he said was new evidence from the shootings on 18-20 February, when 76 people were killed.

At a news conference in Kiev, Mr Avakov presented the initial findings of an initial investigation into the mass shootings that shocked Ukraine and the world.

Most of the demonstrators who died were killed on Instytutska street near the main protest camp on Independence Square, widely known as the Maidan.

Mr Avakov gave details of one particular episode where he said the inquiry had established that eight of those killed were hit by bullets from the same machine-gun.

He identified Maj Dmytro Sadovnyk as commander of a unit suspected of shooting dead at least 17 protesters.

"From the side of the the Zhovtnevy Palace, a special squad from the riot Berkut police, wearing yellow armbands, opened fire at the protesters. Much of this fire was targeted. We are carrying out ballistics tests on the weapons," Mr Avakov said.

The interior minister also showed a number of slides and photos illustrating where he said police snipers were firing from. He named two buildings on Khreshchatyk and Kostyolna streets, saying other spots were still being investigated.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The initial findings of the government enquiry are out; expect them to be ignored by the usual suspects. BBC link

Psychic predictions that I'll ignore that BBC article aside... what possibilities did I ignore?

Please just ignore the context and say something lazy like "the right ones" or "the ones that don't fit your opinions..."

ETA: I know you get lost easily, so let me point you to post #232 for the question to ignore (or answer dishonestly, or to try a new approach with, your pick), thx.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Beside the BBC link posted here twice now, there's also these reports I just finished skimming:
Reuters - Business Insider - RT - Itar-Tass

I'm not instantly convinced of the new government's blaming of the old. But I'm sure with enough shaming I'll come around, right?

 

[LSSBB]

Reviewed and I'm pretty sure the lapse is only in your reading. I meant to say it's true there are many signs, and my point based on that stands. Why don't you tell me what you think I got wrong and why it matters?



Am I? Or else what?



In the absence of clinical details and wound measurements and all that right here, by your thinking then, I took a "wild guess" she might know what she's talking about. And I'll stand by that. If it sounds like I'm over-arguing the possibility, maybe that's so. But it's to make sure the case is seen in its proper detail, not re-worded, minimized, and swept under the carpet. Because it seems like all you "skeptics" want to do is keep arguing against that possibility, and presume that she must be wrong, without any good reason, in a wild guess that there's nothing to worry about here.

For example, how so many people scoff that Paet was only talking about "rumors" making the rounds. Above Uke2se was probably referring to this again accusing me of "stating rumors and innuendos as fact."

Challenge: Uke2se, what word or phrase is it that you all keep using "rumors" as a stand-in for? It's not the word used by Paet himself. Can you tell me what it is, and why you, for one, keep finding "rumors" the best fill-in for?

If you think about it, you might realize the lapse in critical thinking involved here.

Mind read fail. I am not arguing against any possibility. I am refusing to accept any as true without sound evidence that they are, including using measurement systems like the good Doctor's brain that don't have independent verification of their accuracy.

The point is to go into the situation letting solid evidence lead to a probable answer. It is not a process of:

1. Form opinion
2. Find evidence that only supports your opinion, or failing that, try to dress facts up so they appear to support your case.

 

[Border Reiver]

Beside the BBC link posted here twice now, there's also these reports I just finished skimming:
Reuters - Business Insider - RT - Itar-Tass

I'm not instantly convinced of the new government's blaming of the old. But I'm sure with enough shaming I'll come around, right?

Instantly being convinced would be a rather suspect "road to Damascus" sort of volte face. How about you read (vice skimming) the reports and let us know if your opinon has changed, and if not the specific evidence that you find suspect?