"Ivan Katchanovski at the University of Ottawa has made a life-long career of attacking ........

"Ivan Katchanovski at the University of Ottawa has made a life-long career of attacking “Ukrainian nationalism” and takes this one step further by spreading the myth, popular in Putinist propaganda, that Right Sector murdered the Euromaidan protestors (not the regime’s Berkut riot police). When he said this at the University of Alberta he was accused of being a political technologist and not an academic"  By professor Taras Kuzio ( https://archive.is/wip/PJdiN )
"Pro-Russian Agenda and Bias"
" Katchanovski’s political agenda prompts him to try and “prove” that the snipers in the Euromaidan were primarily from the Euromaidan protesters and “far right.” One of the first questions that springs to mind is, why has only Katchanovski been able to find purported supporting evidence if it truly is “publicly available, but unreported, suppressed, or misrepresented.” As Marples too has pointed out, the photos used in Katchanovski’s paper are from videos and, therefore, are very blurry. This makes it practically impossible to see snipers, never mind ascertain who they were. There certainly could have been some protesters with guns, although in all of the videos and photos that I have collected, there are only a handful of armed people and these are standing among protesters on the streets – not “shooters” firing from roofs and hotel windows.
Alternative Hypotheses Ignored
There are various additional explanatory hypotheses for the shootings that Katchanovski never even considers, such as the chaos that results during pitched battles or the collateral damage that results from the actions of different police, Security Service (SBU) units and vigilantes (some of whom had ties to organized crime) involving weapons. Also, the possibility of Russian actors is for some reason never even entertained by Katchanovski. Ukayinska Pravda journalist Serhiy Leshchenko in his new book titled “Mezhyhirya Syndrome” about Yanukovych’s presidency investigates the influence and involvement of President Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence operatives in Ukraine. Even Putin has admitted that his forces assisted in Yanukovych’s fleeing from Ukraine.
A Western journalist in Kyiv that I interviewed (who desired to remain anonymous) heard from a number of sources that some of the snipers were from Russia. “One source from the presidential administration told me several times in December through February that Yanukovych had brought in mercenaries from Russia and had them based somewhere in central Kyiv, adding that it was not sure what the arrangement was and whether Putin had a direct role in providing them, but it was clear they were ready to shoot at the protestors if needed.” The role of “The Family” was also a factor in the snipers’ activities and later in the violence in the Donbas: “After the sniper shootings took place, this source said he heard from good sources that Yanukovych’s elder son gave the de facto orders to shoot. A second oligarch source said Yanukovych’s eldest son ‘Sasha’ gave the orders to shoot as he was sitting in the situation room.” On leaked intercepts of police radio traffic the words “Sasha, Sasha” are audible. The Western journalist investigating law enforcement officers asked who the snipers in black were, and the Interior Ministry and SBU claimed they were not their men and that they didn’t know who they were.’
A genuinely “academic” paper would have tried to objectively analyze and present these different scenarios and then in his conclusions provide and explain what the author took to be the most likely scenario. Katchanovski instead seems to proceed in the opposite direction insofar as his paper on the massacre caused by snipers appears to have reached a foregone conclusion that is politically driven.
Poor Academic Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories
Still other elements of his paper also do not stand up to scrutiny as reflected in the following three examples. First, Katchanovski criticizes the prosecutor-general’s office for not investigating the murders in a thorough manner. But as is well known, this office is over-manned, incompetent and corrupt, and it has never been able to investigate high-level crimes such as the murder of journalist Georgi Gongadze in 2000 or presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko’s poisoning in 2004. Why should the Euromaidan murders be any different? Second, Katchanovski makes a rather unusual claim for anybody studying Ukraine that there is no written order by Yanukovych ordering the killings. But, as is also well known, such tactics were the norm in the USSR and continue in Ukraine with “telefone pravo” (telephone law, or orders given over the telephone). Orders, and especially controversial orders, are not written down in societies without the rule of law. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is no written order as to who sent police special forces to repress the Orange Revolution on 28 November 2004; there is no documentary evidence to prove who gave the orders to conduct massive election fraud in that year’s election; and there are no documents to show who gave the order to poison former president Yushchenko.
Third, a conspiracy mindset was very deeply ingrained in the former USSR and in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine where cover-ups, poor investigations and concealed evidence are pointed to as evidence of the existence of conspiracies. Katchanovski’s paper on the snipers massacre follows in this pattern. The conspiracy mindset is heavily prevalent in eastern Ukrainian and in Russian political culture such that Yanukovych, the Party of Regions, the Communist Party and Russian politicians believe that the Georgian Rose and Ukrainian Orange Revolutions as well as the Euromaidan were the supposed product of Western backed putschs.
That Katchanovski’s paper on the snipers massacre is politically driven may be seen in his conclusion when he provides what Marples believes is an argument “that appears to fall closely into line with the RT version of events disseminated in the Russian Federation.” Katchanovski claims the murders of protesters “represented a violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine and a major human rights crime” committed by “elements” of the Euromaidan and “far-right.” His position ignores the crucial detail that the far right did not come to power after the Euromaidan came to power, and that they lost two pre-term elections in May and October 2014. More importantly, Yanukovych had been preparing to flee throughout the third week of February as can be seen in the security camera videos at his Mezhyhirya palace that he left behind. His flight from Kyiv was, therefore, not in response to a threat expressed by Euromaidan activist Volodymyr Parasiuk from the Maydan stage—who, incidentally, was not a member of Pravyy Sektor. Katchanovski (like Russian statements and propaganda) ignores three other important factors: (1) Yanukovych was impeached by a vote of 328 to zero by parliament: (2) the Party of Regions condemned Yanukovych; and (3) Yatseniuk was appointed prime minister by a vote of 374 to 1.
As these facts demonstrate beyond any doubt, nobody “seized” power, and the Euromaidan was not an illegal “putsch.” If a Ukrainian president dies or is incapacitated, there is provision in the constitution for the parliamentary chairman to become “acting president” until new elections are held. There is, however, no constitutional provision for what action should be taken if the president abandons his job!  "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putinphiles & silent Ukrainian professors in Canadian Universities, Taras Kuzio
"Taras Kuzio, dismissed Katchanovski personally as an anti-Ukrainian, noting that his opinions mirrored those of Vladimir Putin and Russian propaganda organs."

Traces in the photos. Response to Ivan Kachanovsky regarding the events of February 20, 2014

Traces in the photos. Response to Ivan Kachanovsky regarding the events of February 20, 2014
| Print |Published on February 29, 2016
Mikhail Martinenko
This is the archived google English translation of an article originally published in Ukrainian language on the site of international magazine named "Modern Ukraine". The article disprove  and debunks Ivan Katchanovski claims that Maidan protester allegedly were shot by other Maidan protesters and the leadership of Maidan protest in Kiev in 2014 year. The original publication of the article in Ukrainian language:

Striking revelation about Ivan Katchanovski’s falsifications

http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
Ivan Katchanovski continues to lie, misrepresent, and falsify evidences of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. For example, he insists that a bullet hit the tree from a direction of the Hotel Ukraina, referring to incorrect testimonies of the Belgian reporter and Ukrainian deputy


( https://www.facebook.com/ivan.katchanovski/posts/1257445174285366


http://archive.is/MQJEq


https://www.facebook.com/ivan.katchanovski/posts/1222181027811781


http://archive.is/HbSa7 )




who are not forensic experts and who never examine the entrance and exit bullet holes on the tree from a close distance. Unfortunately for this Katchanovski falsification, there are many photographs shot from various directions and angles which vividly show the entrance and exit bullet holes on this tree , including the pictures of the entrance bullet hole which determinedly indicate that bullet was fired from the Berkut police barricade. For example:





http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/1472/1472_original.jpg


http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/22878/22878_original.jpg


http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/19098/19098_original.jpg


http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/26452/26452_original.jpg


Also, there is the gallery of the other photos of the entrance and exit bullet holes on this tree with the internet sources of these pictures:


http://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/734.html


According to these photos, a bullet fired from a direction of the Berkut police barricade and from a shallow angle created the small entrance bullet hole and big exit bullet hole on this tree. In addition, this video https://ok.ru/video/11099769456 from 4:00 minutes clearly explains how a bullet fired from the Berkut police barricade made the entrance and exit bullet holes on this tree.


Does Ivan Katchanovski know about these photos? Yes, of course!!! He was aware about these pictures since he utilized the photos source websites in his bogus research for other purposes. Ivan Katchanovski should have presented these photos in his paper, indicating the bullet direction from the Berkut police barricade. He must have told the truth that bullet hit this tree from a direction of the Berkut police barricade. Instead, Ivan Katchanovski blatantly lied to his readers and to his fellow scientists that a bullet was fired from a direction of the Hotel Ukraina. To uphold this falsification, he cited the erroneous non-expert testimonies of the Belgian journalist and Ukrainian deputy who are not forensic experts and who never examined the entrance and exit bullet holes on the tree from any close distance. Katchanovski also lied about an official investigation of GPU as though GPU concluded that a bullet hit the tree from a direction of the Hotel Ukraina. GPU never made such conclusion!
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:

https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/

Author:  Slav Gutt

Twelve automatic rifles of the Berkut police unit were implicated in the Maidan Massacre, ....

Twelve automatic rifles of the Berkut police unit were implicated in the Maidan Massacre, but this information was ignored and omitted in Ivan Katchanovski's "research".
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
From the moment of 1:20:50 of the court trial video on June 21, 2016 ( https://youtu.be/KfHQLOp5PlE?t=4850 ). Prosecutor Psyuk pointed out that, according to the results of forensic examinations, at least twelve (12) automatic rifles, AKMS, of the Berkut police unit were involved in the Maidan massacre on February 20, 2014. Bullets were extracted from bodies of killed and wounded Maidan protesters, and forensic examinations proved that these bullets were shot from automatic rifles of the the Berkut police during Maidan events. He also said that maidan protester Maksym Shymko was killed from from the AKMS with the number of GU3557, and this AKMS was assigned to court tried Berkut police member Zinchenko. According to his words, bullets extracted from the bodies of maidan protesters of Kolesnikov, Kemskyy, Dziavulskyy, and Kovalchuk were shot from the AKMS with the number of 703087, and this AKMS was assigned to court tried Berkut police member Abroskin. Both Zinchenko and Arbroskin, the members of the Berkut police unit implicated in Maidan massacre, were present during court trial on June 21, 2016 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfHQLOp5PlE )

Other prosecutor from the moment of 1:24:19 of court trial video https://youtu.be/KfHQLOp5PlE?t=5059 states that forensic examinations proves that the Berkut police unit automatic rifles, AKMS, with the numbers of 493077, 517560, 599158, 600741, 864113, 866843, 513800, 493749, 511709, 864438 were involved in murders and wounding of Maidan protesters during Maidan massacre on February 20, 2014 year.

From the moment of 1:03:10 of the court trial video of https://youtu.be/KfHQLOp5PlE?t=3790 the judge starts reading the forensic investigation reports on bullets taken from the bodies of murdered maidan protesters and from the bodies of wounded maidan protesters during medical service. From the moment of 1:11:12 of the court trial video https://youtu.be/KfHQLOp5PlE?t=4271 , he pronounces the numbers ( 493077, 517560, 599158, 600741, 703877, 703087, 864113, 866843, 513800, 493749, 551709, 864438, 813913, GU3557 ) of AKMS of members of the Berkut police unit involved in the shootings during Maidan massacre.

There are many internet publications on shootings of Maidan protesters by the Berkut police unit from the concrete barricade. They were automatically approximately translated and archived. For example:

«Examination confirmed the participation of the Berkutovets in the killings on the Maidan - GPU»
http://archive.fo/ujKWH (scroll down to read the full page)

«Examination confirmed participation of berkutovtsy in murders on the Maidan, - GPU»
http://archive.fo/f2Zkr (scroll down to read the full page)

«GPU: From the official weapons of the Berkutovtsy Abroskin and Zinchenko killed three maydanovtsev»
http://archive.is/qRLQr (scroll down to read the full page)

There is a collection of translated and archived Ukrainian news websites about the involvement of the Berkut police in the Maidan massacre:
https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/8414.html

Ivan Katchanovski on purpose ignored and omitted this information about shootings of maidan protesters by Bercut police unit in his papers despite he used this court trial video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfHQLOp5PlE ) on page 31 of his “research paper” titled “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations” to claim that one forensic examination based on “IBIS-TAIS system” proves that government police was not involved in the shootings of maidan protesters.
https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/8586.html
However, there are two internet publications explaining deficiencies of this forensic examination:
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/

http://archive.is/Zxkkj

http://archive.is/t8iBt


                              (To be continued)

Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:  https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-is-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Author:  Slav Gutt

The maidan protesters of Pankiv, Baidovsky, and other were killed by the Berkut police

The maidan protesters of Pankiv, Baidovsky, Dziavulsky, and Varenytsia were killed by the Berkut police unit, but this information was ignored and omitted by Ivan Katchanovski
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/


Like the court trial video from June 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFGip3tB3k provides strong evidences on the involvement of the Berkut police unit in the murder of seven maidan protesters http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-maidan-protesters-of-dmytriv.html , the court trial video from July 5, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL5zSVAB5FM provides strong evidences that the maidan protesters of Pankiv, Baydovskyy, Dzyavulskyy, Varenytsya were also killed by the Berkut police unit.  Bullets were found and removed from the bodies of Pankiv, Baidovsky, Dziavulsky, and Varenytsia, and forensic examinations of these bullets prove that these protesters were murdered by the Berkut police unit during the Maidan massacre on Febuary 20, 2014 year.

From the court video moment of 5 minutes and 50 second (5:50) of  https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=348 , the judge begins reading the forensic examination report on the bullet removed from the body of Pankiv .  The prosecutor on 10:52 of https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=652 stated that the bullet from the Pankiv's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AKMS rifle with number 600741 that belonged to the Berkut police member  who is currently at large and being wanted by the Ukrainian authorities.

From the moment of 1:04:43 of the court trial video of  https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=1194 , the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on bullet taken from the body of Baidovsky. The prosecutor on 26:30
of https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=1590 noted that the bullet taken out of the Baidovsky's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AK rifle numbered by 517560 of the Berkut police member who currently being at large and wanted. Defense attorney Varfolomeyev stated https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=1630 that evidences of the previous  forensic examination report from 12.16  supports the evidences of this forensic examination that Baidovsky, Saienko and Ikiv were wounded from the same piece  of the weapon.

From the moment of 32:20 of the court trial video https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=1926 , the judge begins reading the forensic investigation reports on the two bullets removed from the body of Dziavulsky. The prosecutor on 40:30 of https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=2429 said that one bullet taken out of the Dziavulsky's body was identified as the bullet that was shot from the AKMS rifle with number 703087 which was assigned to court tried Berkut police member Abroskin. The forensic examination proves that the second bullet was fired from the AKMS rifle with number 513800 of Sadovnik, the commander of Berkut police unit, who fled to Russia. The second prosecutor emphasized https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=2490 that two bullets found in the Dziavulsky's body were shot by Sadovnik and court tried Abroskin, the member of the same Berkut police unit, and they acted in a coherent manner in one police unit during the Maidan massacre on February 20, 2014 year.

From the moment of 47:30 of the court trial video https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=2850 the judge begins reading the forensic investigation reports on the bullet extracted from the Varenytsia's body. The prosecutor on
50:57  https://youtu.be/RL5zSVAB5FM?t=3057 noted that the bullet extracted from the Varenytsia's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AK rifle with the number of 866843, and this AK rifle was used by a Berkut police member who currently being wanted.

All these above described and important but inconvenient for Katchanovski "research" evidences were omitted and ignored by Ivan Katchanovski despite he used this court trial video from July 5, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL5zSVAB5FM in his "research paper" named The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations on page 28 https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/50218/original.jpg in the sentence: "Four other of these protesters (Panteleev, Shymko, Solchanyk, and Tarasiuk) were shot either by military grade bullets or by expanding hunting bullets of the same caliber"
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/                                
(To be continued)

Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:  https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-is-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/

(TO BE CONTINUED)


Author:  Slav Gutt 

The maidan protesters were killed by the Berkut police unit

The maidan protesters of Dmytriv, Zhalovaha, Ilkiv, Kemsky, Poliansky, Saienko, Smolensky were killed by the Berkut police unit, but this information was ignored and omitted by Ivan Katchanovski
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
The court video from June 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFGip3tB3k
provides solid evidences that the maidan protesters of Dmytriv, Zhalovaha, Ilkiv, Kemsky, Poliansky, Saienko, Smolensky were killed by the members of the Berkut police unit from the Berkut police concrete barricade.  Bullets were found and extracted from the bodies of Dmytriv, Zhalovaha, Ilkiv, Kemsky, Poliansky, Saienko, Smolensky, and forensic investigations prove that these protesters were murdered by the Berkut police unit during the Maidan massacre on Febuary 20, 2014 year.

From the court video moment of 49 minutes and 10 second 49:10 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=2950 and  49:44 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=2984 , the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Dmytriv. The prosecutor on 56:18 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=3348 emphasized that the bullet from Dmytriv's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AK rifle of Berkut police member Semysyuk.

From the court video moment of 1:04:43 of https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=3882 , the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Zhalovaha. The prosecutor on 1:08:51 of https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=4131 said that the bullet taken out of the Zhalovaha's body was identified as the bullet that was shot from the AK rifle numbered 864113 of one Berkut police member.

From 1:12:40 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=4320 the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Ilkiv. The prosecutor on 1:15:34  https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=4532   noted that the bullet taken out of Ilkiv's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AKMS rifle with the number of 517560, and this AKMS rifle was assigned to Berkut police member Devyatko who currently being at large and wanted by Ukrainian authorities. Also, the prosecutor said that the bullet removed from the Ilkiv's body is identical with the bullets extracted from the bodies of Saienko and Baidovsky.

From 1:20:25 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=4825 the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Kemsky. The prosecutor on 1:25:16 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=5086  said that the bullet removed from the Kemsky's body was identified as the bullet that was shot from the AKMS rifle numbered by 703087 of court tried Berkut police member Abroskin . Abroskin was present on this court session on June 30, 2016.

From 1:38:51 of https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=5931 the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Poliansky. The prosecutor on 1:41:45 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=6100 noted that the bullet taken out of the Polyansky's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AK rifle with number 513800, and this AK rifle was used by commander Sadovnyk of the Berkut police unit during the Maidan massacre on Febuary 20, 2014 year. The attorney of the tried Berkut police members on 1:42:11 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=6131 noted that from this AK weapon were wounded eight other Maidan protesters.

From the court video moment of 2:32:40 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=9160 , the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Sayenko. The prosecutor on 2:37:30 of https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=9434 said that the bullet taken out of the Sayenko's body was identified as the bullet that was shot from the AK rifle with number 517560, and this AK rifle was assigned to Berkut police member who is at large and wanted by Ukrainian authorities.

From the court video moment of 2:43:15 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=9795 the judge starts reading the forensic investigation report on the bullet removed from the body of Smolensky. The prosecutor on the video moment of 2:46:20 https://youtu.be/1iFGip3tB3k?t=9975 said that the bullet extracted from the Smolyanskyy's body was identified as the bullet that was fired from the AKMS rifle of a Berkut police member.

All these evidences were omitted and ignored in the Katchanovski research though Ivan Katchanovski used five times this court trial video from June 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFGip3tB3k in his research paper named The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations: https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/7109.html

http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/


(To be continued)
Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:  https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-is-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Ivan Katchanovski falsified the murder of Anatoliy Zhalovaha

http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
Ivan Katchanovski on pages 45 and 46 of his “research” paper of "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations" states that the photo of Anatoliy Zhalovaha helmet shows an entry bullet hole in the right back area of the helmet.

https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/6722.html
Actually, this photo http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/51,114871,15935825.html?i=0 shows bullet hole at the middle of the helmet forehead. If anyone closely scrutinizes and compares the enlarged Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s helmet on the photo with example helmets, he or she would see the front of the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s helmet with bullet hole at the middle of the forehead. There are areas circled and numbered by “1, 2, 3, 4 , 5” on the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s helmet and example helmets:

https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/6327.html

The area with the distinctive snakelike helmet rim curvature close to the helmet front and circled by blue and red circles and marked by blue “5” number and red “2” number on the helmet pictures indicates the front part of the Anatoliy Zhalovaha helmet on the photo:

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/42737/42737_900.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/46070/46070_900.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rassian_fakes/78051020/40730/40730_900.jpg

Ivan Katchanovski failed to explain how this allegedly entry bullet hole is located at the middle of the forehead on the photo if it entered, according to the Katchanovski “research”, behind the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s right ear.  Had this bullet hole was the entry bullet hole behind the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s right ear, it would have been located somewhere near right bottom of the helmet at the spot circled by blue and red circles and marked by blue “5” number and red “2” on the helmet pictures, not at the middle top part of the helmet.

Moreover, the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s father in his testimony during court trial told that this photo contains the front of the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s helmet with the bullet hole in the middle of the forehead. The Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s father pointed out that the bullet hole is concave, bulging inside the helmet, and it means that Anatoliy Zhalovaha was hit at the middle of his forehead ( https://youtu.be/4n0BFF8ZLxg?t=16053  4:27:33 – 4:29:20 ). According to the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s father testimony, there was a small entry bullet hole at the Anatoliy Zhalovaha forehead and a big exit hole at the back of Anatoliy Zhalovaha head. ( https://youtu.be/4n0BFF8ZLxg?t=18875 , 5:14:35 – 5:15:20 ) Neither attorneys of five tried Berkut police members, no Berkut police members objected or questioned the Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s father testimony that this photo shows the front part of Anatoliy Zhalovaha’s helmet with the bullet hole at the middle of the forehead. But Ivan Katchanovski omitted this very important but inconvenient for his “research” testimony though he used this court trial video in his paper.

Ivan Katchanovski also omitted testimonies of prosecutors and a defense attorney. According to their testimonies, bullet that killed Anatoliy Zhalovaha was found, and a forensic investigation determined that this bullet was shot from the AK rifle of a Berkut police member who now is at large and wanted by Ukrainian authorities: ( https://youtu.be/4n0BFF8ZLxg?t=18172 5:02:52 – 5:04:40 ) The defense attorney Varfolomeyev of tried Berkut police members said that from this weapon of the Bercut police member were shot ten maidan protesters, including Anatoliy Zhalovaha ( https://youtu.be/4n0BFF8ZLxg?t=18377 5:06:18 – 5:08:06 , 5:07:10 ) But Ivan Katchanovski on pages 34, 35 of his research falsely states that these ten maidan protesters ( Kemsky, Korneev, Saienko, Zhalovaha, Shymko, Dmytriv, Ilkiv, Poliansky, and Smolensky ) were shot from the Hotel Ukraina.
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
(To be continued)

Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:  https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-is-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/
(TO BE CONTINUED)

Ivan Katchanovski fake invention on shootings of maidan protesters by "maidan snipers" from.....

Ivan Katchanovski fake invention on shootings of maidan protesters by "maidan snipers" from the Bank Arkada the Museum Lane or an Ivan Katchanovski's attempt to whitewash fled corrupted president Viktor Yanukovich and his criminal, kleptocratic government
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
Ivan Katchanovski  in his “research”  publications and video appendices falsely claims that many maidan protesters were shot by  the "maidan snipers" from the direction of the Bank Arkada and the Museum Lane even though these locations were under control of the government police and security forces during the Maidan massacre and there are no any available evidences that Maidan protesters approached even close to these locations during the Maidan massacre.

There are no any publically available videos and any other evidences that the Bank Arkada and the Museum Lane were under control by the Katchanovski’s mysterious “maidan snipers” ( The “maidan snipers” were earlier invented by Russian propaganda and supported later by Katchanovski himself in his "study" on the Maidan massacre). Neither Ivan Katchanovski provided any these evidences in his papers and video appendices on the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. Only Ivan Katchanovski in his “study” of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine falsely  claims that the Bank Arkada like the Museum Lane were under control by the misterious “maidan snipers” during the Maidan Massacre. In fact, as it was proved in the previous posts ( http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/2015/05/ivan-katchanovski-falsifier-of.html ), the Bank Arkada and the Museum Lane were controlled by the government police and security forces during the Maidan Massacre.  Ivan Katchanovski solely invented this “defence” for the Berkut government police for the purpose to whitewash corrupted president Viktor Yanukovych and his criminal government.

Even during the court trial  of  five Berkut policemen located on the  Berkut police concrete barricade the same issue that the Bank Arkada and the Museum Lane were controlled by “maidan snipers”  was never introduced by any parts of the court trial despite  five court tried Berkut policemen and their defense attorneys used  shootings from the adjacent buildings located near the Berkut police concrete barricade as a defense that these shots from the adjacent buildings have nothing to do with criminal charges of  five Berkut policemen during the court trial. To defend in court five members of Berkut police unit, their defense attorneys claim that other government security force units like Omega and Alfa shot maidan protesters from the adjacent buildings and why five court tried Berkut police members who were on the concrete barricade during the massacre are not responsible for these shots. Ivan Katchanovski did not mentioned about these inconvenient evidences ( like he omitted and ignored other inconvenient evidences on shootings of maidan  protesters by government police and security ) in his "research" publications and videos.

This issue how Ivan Katchanovski attributes killing and wounding of maidan protesters from the Bank Arkada and the Museum Lane to the mysterious “maidan snipers” demonstrates the Ivan Katchanovski attempt to whitewash fled corrupted president Viktor Yanukovich and his criminal, kleptocratic government.  (To be continued)
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/

Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:  https://www.facebook.com/Ivan-Katchanovski-is-a-falsifier-of-the-contemporary-history-of-Ukraine-1449195048708622/
(TO BE CONTINUED)

Vasyl Halamai was shot by the Berkut police

http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
Ivan Katchanovski on  page 52 https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/4747.html of his “research” titled Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine claims that Vasyl Halamai was wounded from the direction of the Bank Arkada though the Bank Arkada was under control of the government police and security forces during massacre.  On page 62 https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/5051.html of  the next paper named The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations  Ivan Katchanovski   used the court trial video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJBd3OypMDw as the source to inform that a Maidan protester aimed a hunting rifle at the direction of Berkut police member Symysiuk. But neither in his papers nor in his facebook posts Ivan Katchanovski mentioned that almost entire court trial video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJBd3OypMDw tells that Vasyl Hamalai was wounded during Maidan Massacre from the direction of the Berkut police barricade and a bullet was shot from the rifle of a Berkut policeman who fled to Russia.  Also, there are internet resources that Vasyl Halamay was shot by one of Berkut Police members.  For example:

The google translation and the archived copies of the google translation of this page:

<<The investigation established which machine was fired from the bullet and even found out to whom this weapon was issued. However, it is still unknown who made the shot.

Prosecutor Roman Psyuk noted: "The bullet that was extracted from the victim's body is 7.62. This bullet is identified as such, which was released from the machine of one of the fighters of "Berkut", which is wanted for this time. They were all wearing masks, only a few people identified. ">>
There are many other news reports on how Vasyl Halamai was shot by one of the Berkut policeman who fled to Russia: https://rassian-fakes.livejournal.com/4445.html

This issue with Vasyl Halamai in Katchanovski “research” demonstrates how Katchanovski unscientifically and unscrupulously deals with sources in his “research” on the Maidan Masacre in Ukraine since he used the small episode in the court trial video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJBd3OypMDw lasting less than minute about the killing of police member Symysiuk while he omitted  more than three hours main story of the video about wounding Vasyl Halamai by police on which he dwelt in his previous paper. This case shows how, in addition to outright falsifications, manipulations, and distortions, Ivan Katchanovsky in his “study” silences, suppresses, and stonewalls evidences on shootings of Maidan protesters  by government police and security forces.
(To be continued)
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/

  Further updates on Ivan Katchanovski's falsifications:

Problems with Katchanovski “witness testimonies” in his Video Appendix B

http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
The absolute majority of Katchanovski "witnesses" of snipers in his Video Appendix B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0jxKJ4LaY are not witnesses by definition since witnesses by definition are people who directly and immediately saw and heard witnessed events. During Maidan events, people used to retell other people stories and rumors which Katchanovski misrepresented them as original witness accounts in this Video Appendix B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0jxKJ4LaY . Katchanovski must look up the definition of words “witness testimony”, and, to be honest researcher, he must give an advance notice in his Video Appendix B that the retold stories and rumors of other people actually are not witness testimonies.

One of the big problems with Ivan Katchanovski “research” is the intentional omitting and ignoring of opposite evidences and testimonies about bullets fired from the area controlled by government police and security forces. For example, Katchanovski refers to Trapezun testimony during an investigative experiment on 7:15 minutes of his Video Appendix B. However, Trapezun in the court changed his opinion about the bullet direction. Starting on 1:07 minutes of court video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI2eS5Xfwt0 , he explained that he initially imagined the Maidan protesters were fired from the Hotel Ukraina, and he later became sure about killing Maidan protesters from the police barricade after the performance of the investigative experiment. Trapezun said he did not see a moment of firing and he only initially imagined the bullet direction from the Hotel Ukraina. After the investigative experiment he changed his opinion. Katchanovski dishonestly omitted this critical episode from his “research” and Video Appendix B.

During the Maidan masacre, people looking at direction of the police front line, heard reflected gunshot sounds from the Hotel Ukraina and other buildings located in the Maidan area that why these gunshot sound reflections from buildings walls made the impression of gunshots fired from the Hotel Ukraina and  other buildings under Maidan control : https://archive.is/wrPqw#selection-1281.0-1281.278
Many spoken stories of Katchanovski Video Appendix B refer to shootings from the Bank Arkada, Museum Lane, Cabmin and Kyivmiskbud. However, according to numerous publicly available videos and other evidences, Maidan protesters never approached these locations which were firmly under control of the government police and security forces during the Maidan massacre. Also, it must be noted that Cabmin and Kyivmiskbud were located deep in the rear of the front line of government police and security forces during the massacre.

Ivan Katchanovski also mistranslated the spoken stories on his Video Appendix B. For example, on 21:15 minutes of Video Appendix B a policeman said that police saw people without weapons on building roofs and police only assumed that other people on building roofs have weapons. Ivan Katchanovski mistranslated this episode that people on building roofs have weapons. 
( To be continued )
http://ivan-katchanovski.blogspot.com/
Posted by