Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

Alright... I meant to do a few things here tonight, but maybe I'll only have time for part of it.

There a number of new reports around, some being gathered at the wiki, and I'm not keeping up on all of them. Here's an important allegation from a former Berkut guy:

No Berkut troops among ‘Maidan snipers’ – Ukrainian special forces veteran

Berkut riot police weren’t involved in mass killings by unidentified snipers in Kiev on February 20. The detention of its officers is an attempt to tarnish Ukrainian law enforcement, Berkut veteran organization head, Vladimir Krashevsky, told RT.
...
“At around 8:00 AM local time [on February 20], the withdrawal of the interior troops and Berkut forces began in several directions. At that moment the troops – who were unarmed – came under sniper fire from several buildings,” Krashevsky told RT.

According to the veteran, Berkut’s covering troops had to perform the risky operation of evacuating 300 interior ministry servicemen from Kiev’s Oktyabrsky palace.

“250 people were evacuated thanks to cover from the guys in black uniforms with yellow armbands (Berkut),” he said. “50 people, unfortunately, were captured by the demonstrators and taken to Maidan.”

“During the cover operation one of the Berkut troops, Nikolay Semchuk, was killed by two snipers. Snipers call this a ‘double shooting’, when two shots are fired at the same. One shot landed in the leg and the other – in the head,” Krashevsky added.

A couple of the civilian vicctims appear to be possibly killed by two shots at once. Is this something that could class as "handwriting" shared between the cases? There are questions how you could be sure, even if you see two different entry angles, it could be from a second hit after the victim fell and rolled, etc.

ETA: I take 8 am as likely the start of the whole shooting-escalating-to-retreat crisis. The actual visible evacuation, as I've noted, was just before 12:30. Some other details may be jumbled - he seems to be assembling this second-hand from Berkut he talked to.

Anyway, that's RT, so I was looking for a Western report mentioning this guy's counter-claims. BBC does cover it here - they talked to him themselves, even:

A former Berkut officer, Volodymyr Krashevsky, denied the allegations. He told the BBC that "neither riot police nor special forces snipers... shot at protesters".

"If the investigation is conducted objectively, it will prove that they have no relation to killings," said Mr Krashevsky, who now heads the Berkut veterans' organisation.

A number of those responsible for the shootings are believed to have fled to Crimea.

There likely will be a real relation to killing, and certainly to injuries. It's in the confusion of which ones that the real deception is most likely. That page shows the Interior Minister holding up proof photos - Uke2se's "concealed" Berkut marksman, the famous one. He would have been evacuated with the others, under sniper fire, no later than 12:26, and likely irrelevant to (except maybe by helping to delay) the sniper massacre that came right after that.

Next, another BBC article:
Ukraine crisis: What we know about the Kiev snipers Know, huh? map - snipers on the Maidan only identified "in the report" - a place off the north end of Maidan, and the Post Office - the National Bank and Hotel Ukraine are IDd as "possible sniper locations"
This I'll come back to. First I'd like to focus just on the picture painted by their reporter witness.

BBC correspondent Daniel Sandford saw the carnage in central Kiev on 20 February for himself.
He reported first seeing injured police officers being loaded into ambulances. It was unclear how they had been hurt but possible that they had been hit by gunfire, he said.
Very soon afterwards, the BBC team saw armed police pulling back from the main square. As protesters rushed up the hill towards them, the police opened fire with automatic weapons and the square resounded with the sound of heavy gunfire.

Already we're off the square, but still called the square. Visible retreat plus attack up a hill makes it almost ceertain this refers to October Palace offensive and retreat, 12:22-26 or so by the big clock. Yes, the square next to that would resound with the two-direction gunfire that ensued. And within minutes, from the mystery snipers opening fire half a block up the street.

The retreating police appeared to be firing at will, our correspondent said.

There are no visible police at the massacre shooting time. During the retreat, "As needed" is probably a better descriptor. "At will" suggests wild shooting, which there's no evidence for in the video record, on either side, really. At least, not from people you can see.

ETA: "At will" is suggestive because we all know how twisted their will was.

Shooting continued for about two hours, after which the police withdrew, leaving only a few snipers in place.

No, those police and Berkut visibly withdrew before, not after, the crucial time, at about 12:25-12:35. They allegedly left snipers in place who did the shooting, mainly in the 30 minutes after that. Sneaky sniper shooting continued more sporadically - he says for two hours, could be. As we've seen, it was resumed briefly for one last sniper killing at sunset.

Notably inaccurate and misleading - considering how few details are given, almost each one manages to decieve.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I tried to see if this report is available to read, but it diidn't pop up easily if so. If I find it, I'll bring the link here. Anyone else should do the same.

The last BBC report I linked to has some details from it, and says

The new authorities have identified two places where they think snipers operated from, on Khreshchatyk Street and Kostiolna Street, but it is believed snipers also opened fire from the Ukraina hotel and the National Bank building.

They included this graphic with two spots "mentioned in the report" and two "possible sniper locations." Two of these can't be relevant to the clear-cut mass-murder shown on video, where the majority died. That's the main thing people are wanting answers to, but I suspect they'll get a mix-and-match approximation with the right political outcome.

Anyone here but me know the scene enough yet to say which two spots can't matter for that central crime?

I'll come back to the complex issue of shooting directions later.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sniper window at the "metro station"?

Slow discussion now, but the views keep ticking up. Must be the high quality "skepticism" putting revisionist crackpot "theories" to bed that's attracting all these readers.

Anyhoo, here I'll note I have made at least one other relevant mistake. Pages back I was debating IDB87 about dents vs. holes in a victim's shield. Turns out IDB was right and I was wrong. This I'll come back to in more detail, because it matters. But first, what I've done from there is start a real reading with detailed processes, and not over-confident first-pass guesses.

My first serious visual placement and trajectory projection is turning out quite interesting. I mentioned it here already, but now that it's ready, it's viewable here, placing the man in green shot 16:53 in the 41-minute video, just seconds after the other two next to him were shot. It turns out he must have been hit from what we've been calling the Metro Station - actually a bank (the "Arcade" - Банк «Аркада») wrapping around the small station hub. But that's where the purple lines (considering red as rough, the tree trunks and all 3 victims) points to, nearest side of the near corner tower on that larger building, high up. Methodology and notes on the scene in question, etc. on the graphic's talk page, here. Note the reasoned argument for a high window vs. rooftop sniper there also.

This, I also noted, might be visually supported if there's an open or missing pane up there. So I checked the video, and as people are getting shot dead, BAM there is a black, glass-free rectangle, on just that side of the corner tower. 2nd level from the top, the smaller panes, middle one of 3 at the top of face #3 as numbered. It seems to have not been open like that, and reflecting sunlight instead, as the Berkut were being chased out around 12:30. Notes and open questions on the talk page there.

What exactly the security and access situation was at this building at that time, I don't know. I imagine it's possible for either side to run in there and get behind that open window to massacre the people down here on the sidewalk. But it's not generally rebel-held like the hotel, that I know of.

Any relevant counter-thoughts?

Also new at ACLOS Ukraine: A different angle and side-issue (part forensics, part socio-psychology and pop culture): Why do/would Berkut gunmen hate Andru Donalds?

 

[carlitos]

Caustic Logic,

I have been lurking in this thread for a while now. Your last photo .... "analysis" is on par with JFK and Bigfoot research. You see / don't see blurry stuff through trees. Just, no.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well that certainly sounds relevant. I wanted to add specific/detailed/useful but I thought "man, isn't this sentence long enough, and packed enough with commas, like usual?" I thought so, but I thought wrong.

As for the insult, was it the admitting and learning from mistakes that reminded you of Bigfoot in the trees? Or was it just that there's tree branches? Or is there an actual problem here - window open when I say it's close or vice-versa? Maybe the former, not the latter. Anyone can check the video anhd see the persistent black rectangle. video
LL
YT
see about 9:00 for the earlier view, and many spots for the clearly open window, 16:50 for example. Because open windows really are rare at that time, and often correlate with snipers inside.

I'm not even saying which side this one was on. Although my hunch can be guessed easily enough.

So, Carlitos, let me ask: what is it about this point of yours that stands out, in your mind, as more than meaningless? What makes you a smart cookie here today?

 

[Caustic Logic]

No answer yet? Until I hear otherwise I'll presume you were just set off noting irrelevant similarities because of lines of fire (JFK) and shapes seen through tree branches (Bigfoot) both came up.

All that matters for the point I was making is the point I was making, which is untouched. The still there is not the best basis to call this on. It's the best frame I could find; considering how I had to zoom in, it's not something that will come through all that well in a still at all. What really clarifies it, and I guess you didn't do, is checking the video and seeing that black rectangle consistently in each frame it can be, while the panes around it invisibly reflect sunlight like all three panes did just before this. And that recently opened window is right about where the trajectory I mapped says it should be. That's a sign that I'm right, not wrong.

Obviously I have been wrong before, but that doesn't mean I am here.

Does anyone that's had an actual look disagree with this call?

 

[uke2se]

No answer yet? Until I hear otherwise I'll presume you were just set off noting irrelevant similarities because of lines of fire (JFK) and shapes seen through tree branches (Bigfoot) both came up.

All that matters for the point I was making is the point I was making, which is untouched. The still there is not the best basis to call this on. It's the best frame I could find; considering how I had to zoom in, it's not something that will come through all that well in a still at all. What really clarifies it, and I guess you didn't do, is checking the video and seeing that black rectangle consistently in each frame it can be, while the panes around it invisibly reflect sunlight like all three panes did just before this. And that recently opened window is right about where the trajectory I mapped says it should be. That's a sign that I'm right, not wrong.

Obviously I have been wrong before, but that doesn't mean I am here.

Does anyone that's had an actual look disagree with this call?

I do, for quite obvious reasons. You're not qualified to conduct the kind of investigation you are attempting, and you are using sub-standard equipment, and you rely way too much on grainy videos.

Maybe a window was opened. Maybe you're wrong and it wasn't. Either way means nothing. The "trajectory" mapped by you is completely unreliable, because you haven't done any real investigation.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Again with the "qualifications." Report me then for operating without. You did what you could already, no one came to stop me. Everything available to me is good enough, at least, to see something as basic as the thing in question. (as I said the video helps, and enhancements help more - a video is coming) You're just as qualified to decide that's not an open window as I am to decide it is. I've taken a concrete position while you did not go on the record as actually disagreeing, even though you implicitly (by answering) had a look. Instead you leave it at maybe and changed the subject. Noted.

There's a window, previously closed like almost all windows here, that was opened as the snipers started work. And I found right on a line I just placed sniper fire on. This doesn't prove anything, but it comes fairly close and it shows the predictive power of this first real, detailed mapping.

Or, as you suggest, it's all a coincidence. Yeah, that's possible, but it's not my job to surrender to every outside possibility. It's your job to encourage me to, and to fail over and over.

Is the sky the limit after this first victory? No. With the limitations of what the videos show and how well, and a lack of detailed medical exams matched to each victims shown, or anything like that ... I think only this victim, and the "ironic kid" IDB87 was correct about, have visual clues clear enough to even get lines that useful.

FWIW, neither of those victims appears to have been shot from the hotel as I previously thought. Having thoughts different from your previous ones ... it can be a refreshing experience. Give it a try sometime, huh?

 

[uke2se]

Again with the "qualifications." Report me then for operating without. You did what you could already, no one came to stop me.

I wasn't trying to get anyone to stop you. I was trying to make you understand that you aren't qualified and stop it yourself. Apparently Dunning-Kruger rules supreme.

Everything available to me is good enough, at least, to see something as basic as the thing in question. (as I said the video helps, and enhancements help more - a video is coming)

It is quite apparent that this is incorrect, due to the fact that you have already made several obvious errors in your many videos based on grainy film-phootage.

You're just as qualified to decide that's not an open window as I am to decide it is. I've taken a concrete position while you did not go on the record as actually disagreeing, even though you implicitly (by answering) had a look. Instead you leave it at maybe and changed the subject. Noted.

Exactly. That is the rational position when something is as unclear as what you present. Taking a concrete position in this case is not something to be lauded.

There's a window, previously closed like almost all windows here, that was opened as the snipers started work.

Here you make several errors in skepticism. Impressive for such a short sentence. You link the window with the snipers. You use grainy phootage to make a definite assertion, and you claim numerous "snipers" without being able to show that any snipers worked from the hotel.

And I found right on a line I just placed sniper fire on. This doesn't prove anything, but it comes fairly close and it shows the predictive power of this first real, detailed mapping.

No, it does nothing of the sort, because you have not conducted a proper investigation. You are presenting circular logic here: Your "trajectory analysis" has shown that a "sniper" supposedly fired from a certain location, and now that you've found an open window, that indicates that your "trajectory analysis" is correct. Completely bonkers.

Or, as you suggest, it's all a coincidence. Yeah, that's possible, but it's not my job to surrender to every outside possibility. It's your job to encourage me to, and to fail over and over.

If I can't convince you that an open window doesn't indicate sniper activity, I don't think the problem lays with me.

Is the sky the limit after this first victory? No.

What victory is that?

With the limitations of what the videos show and how well, and a lack of detailed medical exams matched to each victims shown, or anything like that ... I think only this victim, and the "ironic kid" IDB87 was correct about, have visual clues clear enough to even get lines that useful.

FWIW, neither of those victims appears to have been shot from the hotel as I previously thought. Having thoughts different from your previous ones ... it can be a refreshing experience. Give it a try sometime, huh?

The problem here isn't you changing your mind. That's required when engaging in skepticism. The problem is asserting something as fact until someone else finds evidence for you, and then asserting something else as fact. If you are unsure, which you damn well should be, you should make that perfectly clear, both here and in your Youtube videos.

 

[TheRealnz]

Right, right, right, cause I'm the nob that said doctors couldn't tell **** from "holes"

So you have just conceded that two different rounds, of the same caliber, chambered in a different size casing would have different ballistic characteristics. Which is what the point was all along.

well Catsmate1?

Sent from my GT-S5830V using Tapatalk 2

 

[uke2se]

well Catsmate1?

Sent from my GT-S5830V using Tapatalk 2

I thought the point was that a doctor giving life-saving aid isn't conducting a forensic investigation measuring bullet holes.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Exactly. That is the rational position when something is as unclear as what you present. Taking a concrete position in this case is not something to be lauded.

Rather, that is the proper course for a lazy corporate-media pseudo-skeptic. So your concrete position, explicitly stated, is the video evidence is simply too unclear ... to allow you to just agree with this obvious point? Or, is it as you say just down to what I presented so far? If so, fair enough. You can see it though, without having to wait for enhancements.

It is quite apparent that this is incorrect, due to the fact that you have already made several obvious errors in your many videos based on grainy film-phootage.

Uh, no. I was able to fix those couple of errors with all the same materials and skills I first made them with. And if the errors are so "obvious," why do you never call them? I catch them myself, or someone actually "engaging" the material does. But not you. In hindsight, you can see they're obvious. That's not so amazing in itself.

No, it does nothing of the sort, because you have not conducted a proper investigation.

If I "conducted a proper investigation," by whatever definition you mean, the line I drew would like, really point to that window, whereas now it only ... what? "whatever! You're disqualified! Unqualified! Stop yourself now!"

 

[uke2se]

Rather, that is the proper course for a lazy corporate-media pseudo-skeptic.

No, it's the proper course for a skeptic. Whatever adjectives you wish to add to the word "skeptic" aren't really relevant.

So your concrete position, explicitly stated, is the video evidence is simply too unclear ... to allow you to just agree with this obvious point?

My concrete position is that it is not possible to have a concrete position on this subject matter.

Or, is it as you say just down to what I presented so far? If so, fair enough. You can see it though, without having to wait for enhancements.

I am not waiting for "enhancements".

Uh, no. I was able to fix those couple of errors with all the same materials and skills I first made them with.

You "fixed" them after people here pointed out your errors to you. You didn't make the research yourself. You were told how and why you were wrong. Only when your position became completely untenable, you waited a few weeks and then "fixed" the video so that it's less crazy.

And if the errors are so "obvious," why do you never call them?

I have. Repeatedly.

I catch them myself, or someone actually "engaging" the material does. But not you. In hindsight, you can see they're obvious. That's not so amazing in itself.

If I "conducted a proper investigation," by whatever definition you mean, the line I drew would like, really point to that window, whereas now it only ... what? "whatever! You're disqualified! Unqualified! Stop yourself now!"

How could you possibly know what would happen if you conducted a proper investigation? You haven't done so, so you can't know what such an investigation would show.

 

[uke2se]

For your benefit, Caustic Logic, here are a few steps a proper investigation into the cause of the deaths of the people you are interested in would require:

- Detailed forensic examination of each victim.
- Detailed on-site investigation regarding the victims' position at the time they were hit.
- On-site measurement of the area.
- On-site investigation, looking for physical evidence.
- Forensic investigation of any recovered bullets or fragments.
- Investigation of any suspected locations of shooters.

As far as I know, you have done none of these. Have you even visited Kiev and the site of the killings?

 

[Caustic Logic]

My concrete position is that it is not possible to have a concrete position on this subject matter.

Thanks for that. With all due respect, it's a pretty dumb position, and I'm glad to have it on record.

ETA: For my benefit? Yay, you're my beneficiary! I mean Benefactor! I only have hypothetical lab results forwarded to your mailbox. No money.

And no, I don't have the money, time, or proper security detail needed to go to Kiev and look in the dirt for a stray bullet casing, or to pull diplomatic levers or hire a mercenary team to get access to records the new authorities probably wouldn't want me to have, and might well ahve burnt for all we know.

It's awesome how, not doing anything yourself, you can come up with lists of impossible and/or irrelevant tasks you think I should perform before ... what, you come up with some other reason to dismiss my "so-called on site investigation?" Lol.

 

[uke2se]

Thanks for that. With all due respect, it's a pretty dumb position, and I'm glad to have it on record.

And no, I don't have the money, time, or proper security detail needed to go to Kiev and look in the dirt for a stray bullet casing, or to pull diplomatic levers or hire a mercenary team to get access to records the new authorities probably wouldn't want me to have, and might well ahve burnt for all we know.

It's awesome how, not doing anything yourself, you can come up with lists of impossible and/or irrelevant tasks you think I should perform before ... what, you come up with some other reason to dismiss my "so-called on site investigation?" Lol.

It's not impossible for a proper investigator, and it certainly is not irrelevant. This is why you make a poor investigator. You don't even have the first clue about what is actually necessary. You think googling news footage and drawing on a map is sufficient. It isn't. Then you have the gall to assert that I am lazy for pointing this out.

And your "investigation" isn't on-site. It's off-the-web.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's not impossible for a proper investigator, and it certainly is not irrelevant. This is why you make a poor investigator. You don't even have the first clue about what is actually necessary. You think googling news footage and drawing on a map is sufficient. It isn't. Then you have the gall to assert that I am lazy for pointing this out.

And your "investigation" isn't on-site. It's off-the-web.

No, using the very best footage - where the open window is maybe 4% more obvious - might take hours of comparing various online postings, or I'm sure you'd prefer, since those are all Online" and have grains (pixels) I shoudl spend months tracking down the guy with the very original footage, verified on his same camera, flying there with my own proper, professional-grade thumb-drive, etc.

And flying all the way to Kiev, burning precious fossil fuels etc., just to measure it all myself - and improve the measurements by probably about 2% - would slightly improve the clarity with which I mapped this out, slightly clarify the match I've already done almost as well, here in the real world.

But if I did it that other way, I have the bonus that you couldn't complain about the investigation not being proper. That, I suspect with good reason, would leave you grasping for a whole other type of knee-jerk obstructionism.

Don't get me wrong - someone honest and rigorous (like me!) getting all the best access, info, and tools would be awesome, and could be milked for a lot, if you didn't get shot doing it.

But again it's impossible, so end of story. We have what we have, you don't want to work with it, and you intend to keep urging the rest of us to follow suit and do nothing. You can continue to do that.

 

[uke2se]

No, using the very best footage - where the open window is maybe 4% more obvious - might take hours of comparing various online postings, or I'm sure you'd prefer, since those are all Online" and have grains (pixels) I shoudl spend months tracking down the guy with the very original footage, verified on his same camera, flying there with my own proper, professional-grade thumb-drive, etc.

And flying all the way to Kiev, burning precious fossil fuels etc., just to measure it all myself - and improve the measurements by probably about 2% - would slightly improve the clarity with which I mapped this out, slightly clarify the match I've already done almost as well, here in the real world.

But if I did it that other way, I have the bonus that you couldn't complain about the investigation not being proper. That, I suspect with good reason, would leave you grasping for a whole other type of knee-jerk obstructionism.

Don't get me wrong - someone honest and rigorous (like me!) getting all the best access, info, and tools would be awesome, and could be milked for a lot, if you didn't get shot doing it.

But again it's impossible, so end of story. We have what we have, you don't want to work with it, and you intend to keep urging the rest of us to follow suit and do nothing. You can continue to do that.

It's obvious to me now that you aren't even interested in actually conducting a proper investigation, and that you'll keep dismissing all criticism against your investigoogle. Let me just tell you this: You will never be taken as anything but a common conspiracy theorist if you aren't even able to recognize your own short-comings.

 

[carlitos]

Well that certainly sounds relevant. I wanted to add specific/detailed/useful but I thought "man, isn't this sentence long enough, and packed enough with commas, like usual?" I thought so, but I thought wrong.

As for the insult, was it the admitting and learning from mistakes that reminded you of Bigfoot in the trees? Or was it just that there's tree branches? Or is there an actual problem here - window open when I say it's close or vice-versa? Maybe the former, not the latter. Anyone can check the video anhd see the persistent black rectangle. video
LL
YT
see about 9:00 for the earlier view, and many spots for the clearly open window, 16:50 for example. Because open windows really are rare at that time, and often correlate with snipers inside.

I'm not even saying which side this one was on. Although my hunch can be guessed easily enough.

So, Carlitos, let me ask: what is it about this point of yours that stands out, in your mind, as more than meaningless? What makes you a smart cookie here today?

This is what I was reacting to. It reminds me of bigfoot photo analysis. What am I seeing through a tree? In your videos, I'm seeing what you tell me I see. In the photo below, I have no idea.

 

[carlitos]

No answer yet?

Yeah, I had the nerve not to post here for 6 whole hours.