Source: Vladimir Rogov, member of the Main Council of the Civil-Military Administration of the Zaporozhye region - https://t.me/vrogov
I uploaded to catbox the video material mentioned as being located here:
- https://files.catbox.moe/ace445.mp4
- https://files.catbox.moe/k7vngk.mp4
- https://files.catbox.moe/zzrya4.MP4
⚡️🇺🇸🇬🇧Bucha massacre Part-I
The National Guard of Ukraine filmed its entering into the town north of Kiev where the alleged massacre took place: https://t.me/vrogov/2348?single
They were first in the town after the withdrawal of Russian troops.
The video clearly shows no dead bodies on the streets.
That casts serious doubts on the later claims of Russian involvement in killings of civilians. Most probably, the following Ukrainian troops shot them as reprisals for the unloyal.
⚡️⚡️🇺🇸🇬🇧Bucha massacre Part-II
On the 31st of March, the Mayor of Bucha Anatoliy Fedoruk announced that the town was again under full control of the Ukranian government: https://t.me/vrogov/2348
The relevant video was posted by «Ukraine 24» channel on the 1st of April.
There was not a signle word on any dead bodies on the streets of the town in the video.
Zhan Beleniuk, a deputy of the Ukrainian parliament, also reported about visiting Bucha after regaining control by the Ukrainian government.
No dead bodies on the streets were mentioned. Both statements were made in a joyful manner without any reservations about atrocities.
The group of Sergey Korotkih was in Bucha on the 1st or the 2nd of April. Again, he made no reference to murder of civilians.
The claim of alleged killings of local civilians by the Russian forces came noticeably later.
It would be absolutely impossible not to notice numerous dead bodies on the streets for those who made initial reports from Bucha.
The dead bodies appeared on the streets much later after the Russian withdrawal from the town.
⚡️⚡️⚡️🇺🇸🇬🇧Bucha massacre Part-III
To understand video materials from Bucha, it is necessary to know the "friend-or-foe" markings used by belligerents in Ukraine: https://t.me/vrogov/2348
The Ukrainian forces use either blue or yellow armlets or stripes (colored adhesive tape, ribbons, etc.). The Russian forces - red or white.
Because members of Ukrainian militia don't always wear military uniforms, local civilians in Bucha wore white stripes on their upper arms when the Russian forces were stationed in Bucha.
That was done to prevent misidentification of civilians as members of the militia.
When the Ukrainian forces entered the town they fired at the people with white stripes, thus killing the civilians.
The video shows a conversation between members of Ukrainian units from a "Boatsman boys" squad.
One of them asks if he can shoot at the people without blue stripes. The other confirms that it can be done (with an expletive).
So the shooting at the civilians was done by Ukrainian units.
Wrong, the camera that caught the hand moving was inside a vehicle. You can see the dashboard of the vehicle and the windshield. There were no water drops anywhere on the lens or there would be blurry spots in other fields of the video image. Why are making up lies?
You can see a sticker on the windshield to the right of the screen. There are no water drops on the windshield from the rain and the wipers are not on.
I am going to flag your handshake account; we do not need misinformation infilTRAITORS here.
Then it was the windshield, which makes more sense. All it takes is one drop. If there is only one drop, would anyone bother to have wipers on? I live in Puget Sound where we have multiple words for rain. If I had to activate my wipers for every solitary raindrop, I would go nuts. I have seen that optical effect myself. A raindrop on the windshield is like a spherical lens.
I apologize for my poor recollection of the discussion by Gonzalo Lira, who backtracked over that video quite a bit to determine what was going on. He identified the culprit as a raindrop on the windshield and I misrecalled his deduction. He is also a film director and knows his optics. And he is NOT an apologist for the Ukranian Nazis, nor am I, so don't get your panties in a twist. There is a strong tendency in this audience to let confirmation bias overrule honesty. Which is somewhat evidenced by your boorish hostility toward a non-conspiratorial assessment of decidedly poor images. But be sure your flag reads "I'm pissed off at this guy because he makes mistakes and does not confirm my bias." You wouldn't want to lie, would you?
Like I said, there are no rain drops on the windshield. None!!! You were caught lying and now changing your story. THERE ARE NO RAINDROPS ON THE WINDSHIELD.
The persons hand moves the distance of a couple feet. A random raindrop will not cause just the hand to move, the entire corpse would move. Your explanation does not make sense. I don't know who you are referencing, it is obvious disinformation to cover up the truth, I believe what my eyes show me.
"Stong tendency in this audience"? Are you separating yourself from the rest of us? Sounds like you just did. What makes you different? Perhaps party affiliation?
"non-conspiratorial assessment of decidedly poor images"? If your original assessment includes obviously fake facts, how is that non-conspiratorial? You admit you were wrong. I would conclude the only thing poor here was YOUR assessment. No, I would go further than that, not just poor, misleading.
Boorish Hostility? "I'm pissed"? No, I was just pointing out you were lying, that is all. It is common practice for liberals to start throwing around unfounded claims once they have been outed, raise your hand if this applies to you.
Oh, bullshit. I was caught making a mistake of recollection, not an intentional deceit. The optical principle is the same: a water droplet in the field of view. It only takes one. Single raindrops can occur, as I know from a lifetime of experience. It all adds up to a transient optical image effect, not a physical movement. So if I said "147 and 255 add up to 401," you would jump up and say "you're a liar...it's 402!" And I would say, "oops, you're right, my apology, it is 402," and you would still say I'm a liar. By your pettifogging approach, you don't know the difference between a lie and an error. I hope you don't walk around with cocked pistols.
I've seen the video. One can barely construe the image as a hand, much less how far it might move. You are unaware of the refractive quality of a spherical lens, it appears. It was not big enough to affect the whole image of the corpse. I got this from Gonzalo Lira who has YouTube videos. Just look him up that way and you can find him. His review video is only a few days old. (He's worth listening to. He's in Ukraine and is debunking stuff right and left.)
Your eyes are uninformed and they don't tell you anything. The image is at the limit of resolution and needs to be broken down frame by frame. (I have also spent time as an optical engineer working on the optical quality of intraocular lenses, so I have had some practice at looking at things.)
Yeah, there is a strong tendency in this audience to accept any crappy information or bullshit that can be woven into whatever narrative is most popular. I don't think I am saying anything other than "the sky is blue" on that point. What makes me different is that I am a trained scientist and engineer, less susceptible to explanations that are emotionally satisfying but factually sketchy. I want hard facts, not squishy pseudo-facts. You are satisfied with squishy ones? See...there's a difference between us. But Q doesn't go with squishy facts.
I was wrong only about where the drop was, but not about the optical effect. Not wrong about the mirror (which you don't dispute, simple foreshortening). Just trying to carry the baton for the guy that found it out originally. Since I am not defending being wrong (error), I don't see what you have against the correction---since it leads to the same result.
Yeah, boorish hostility. You can't take a simple correction without accusing me of treason. It is common practice for liberals to throw around unfounded claims and that was why I was correcting you---before you got the anons associated with an untenable interpretation and damaged our reputation. Pal, that image was murky as hell. You won't convince anyone who didn't want to be convinced in the first place---and you would both be fools.
LOL, ya you were right, there was one rain drop that fell that day and it fell in the exact spot, with perfect timing where it had the potential to expose the plan of the Ukraine Nazi forces to stage a fake false flag attack and paint the Russian forces as murderous invaders. And you came here with the "science" to defend the Nazi's reputation, nothing to see here, move along.
Trust the science you say? Where have I heard that before? Dr. Fauci, is that you? Look guys, I found Dr. Fauci, he is designing death rays now.
I am truly glad you came here with your lifetime of rain experience because I have never seen rain before. I would be curious to know if any other anons here have ever seen rain before. How many times do you have to experience this rain phenomena before you become an expert in the field? My untrained eye was deceiving me I guess, lol.
BTW, it was broken down frame by frame in the video, forward and in reverse.
I am not an optical engineer with a background in transient optical image effect, refractive quality of a spherical lens and raindrops but.....I can point out Nazi horse shit when I see it.
Give it up dude, I saw you were defending Nazi's in a separate post calling Operation Paperclip nonsense. You have been here a year and have a post score of 297. You are not at all concerned about the reputation of this board or you would be more active. You only get involved when there are Nazi's to protect it seems.
Nazi's are gonna Nazi.