File talk:Odessa burnt bodies.jpg

Relevance Challenged
In all this time, I still haven't seen any other source to confirm or place this photo or any scene at all like it in the TU Hall. I think more than likely it was misattributed and doesn't belong in our study. The stamped site is Serbian, and went on about Odessa a bit, but scanning around, I didn't see where they published this or provide an explanation. If it's good, we'll see how good. If no explanation, someone maybe hoaxed them with a fake "first-hand" photo they later pulled, etc... Not to be discarded for certain until it's proven, but not to be counted amongst the clearly-connected actual evidence. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That said, there's also a claim that a woman and her three children were trapped in the building and all burned alive. I'm less stern about how I haven't seen any such group in the recorded victims (the youngest was I think Vadim, 17, likely there on his own without Mum...) One could decide this photo explains that story, but maybe instead one of these false leads explains the other appearing to support it, or something unreliable like that. Until I can see some context (done digging for now), I'm cutting my interior victims verified list from 32 to 29, and then back up to 30 due to another revision on the 5th floor. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If Relevant...
More than gore value here. As always, really, but ... Having looked at it,
 * 1) These people are extremelt charred. Was the fire really that fierce, or were these ones specially doused and extra burnt for some reason?
 * 2) Extra burning helps obscure identities. This can erase certain crimes, and/or let others be inserted. These might now become Russian infiltrators with un-burnt IDs found nearby ...
 * 3) I don't think these people were killed by the fire but before, and then burnt. The person on the left has most head flesh intact, unlike the complete skeleton-face to the right (background person more intact too, but...) Scalp flesh is fragile, easily cracks in a fire, leaving skull visible. But this person's scalp is cracked wide open down to the ears - that's unusual - I think he (or she?) was beaten badly in the head, his scalp broken already, probably dead from it with that face already. Then the first heat  split the scalp wide open early on, leaving most of that skull to burn a while, only receding a bit more under the rest of the burning.
 * 4) Both victims' left hands we should see are missing, but that probably means nothing. People this burnt, at least by an enemy (Libya, Syria, Ukraine) hardly ever get to keep their hands. Especially if left hands of leftists, with Nazi souvenir hunters around? Who knows? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are right hands though, aren't they? Oops. Whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I though the "scalp" or exposed scull was a helmet. Maybe it is the scull after all. I suspect we will never see more photographs or autopsy reports. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. The less burned parts are just under the receding edge, the last to pull back. Should have been wearing a helmet. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You know how to use the history function, right CL? This was the original article page I changed. That was a bit over the top, me thinks. But I have just added this link to the photo section and must say that there is indeed a lot of suspicious stuff to analyze in the body of evidence. --CE (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not curious enough yet/too busy. But I'm for taste here -having it to show is good, but slapping right out so you can't avoid seeing it, nah, not here. A lasting record draws little from momentary shock, and seeing this stuff just upsets some people, maybe should upset more, who don't necessarily need the shock. Especially when we deal over and over with stuff that's so full of it. Quick shock attacks have their place but that's more on Twitter and Facebook (I see Petri's been on this on FB, and I presume Twitter too - kudos) So, I endorse the "fixes" on general principle, FWIW, on trust w/no review of them in actuality, in case it was unfair after all. Cheers! --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another issue - if the site's not too Ukraine-heavy yet, it might get that way. This all deserves the ACLOS-type treatment, but ... the who and how aside ... there's a case to be made for a new wiki to track that stuff and attract its own interested members, their skills, and all that. Sort of an out there thought, but worth having out there, right? (In case anyone runs ahead, ACLOU does not work like ACLOS did - a whole new name is needed. I'd be a member for sure) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dunno, thought about it already. Pro: It would keep the content separated. And it's free. Contra: We'd have to maintain two places and really, the situation is not the same. There are tons of people investigating every fart in Ukraine atm, and most of them on both sides speak Russian, and the time that the putschists word is taken as gospel by the pre$$titudes seems to be ending quickly/over already. Maybe such a place exists already, and if it doesn't, the people maintaining one should definitely speak Russian. --CE (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it certainly couldn't be the place, at any rate. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)