Comment by ailef | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ailef | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych

There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source).

There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.

I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial.

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245

[2] https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD

> There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.

Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising.

If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'

Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims.

http://maidan.situplatform.com

> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'

Why not quote the full sentence?

> Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."

I'd like to particularly emphasize:

> the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome

> there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."

The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.

BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this:

> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych

> The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.

He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda.

Theres a difference.

Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says?

By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.

> Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says?

Mostly, yes.

Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.

> Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.

So your reply is a non sequitur?

> Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says?

It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really.

> By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.

What problems are these? its hard to tell.

> What problems are these? its hard to tell.

You said:

> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'

Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”:

> > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."

The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.

I've shown you that your own source is highlighting these problems, but you chose to deliberately ignore them. It's really hard to continue this conversation assuming you are replying in good faith, so I'm not going to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com