comentarii despre evoluția avionului su 35 (youtube)

8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)

1/22

Comentariu su 35 (YouTube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY

Gabriel Pascu

acum 3 sptmni

Yesterday I made judgments (of the unicity of thi s evoluti on) which appears to be too

categori cal for some. I want to clar i fy that the Russians don' t have a superior technology,

but a super ior science for using the technology whi ch they already have. That means

something radical: a shif t of paradigm. It can do incredible things with the " parts" which

are used on the correct pri nciples. Simply the Americans are (more) advanced in the wrong

direction.

ImixSpb

acum 3 sptmni

Just for all countries there is objective difference in mentality and engineering traditions.Americans built weapons as a tool, Germans as engineering master piece, Russian as

weapons.

In programming, this is called principle "KISS" - keep it short and simple or /slightly rough

version/ keep it simple, stupid ))

Mul tumesc pentr u raspunsul quasi decent. Cred totusi ca n-am fost inteles. Spuneam ca

este o schimbare de paradigma (de punct de vedere asupra subi ectului ). Pe scur t:

- ameri cani i incearca sa scoata " omul' din avion (prin tehnologie).

- rusi, din contra, incearca sa introduca " omul" in avion prin util izarea tehnologiei dupa

anumite pri ncipii.

Si uni i si ceil alti au acelasi scop: performanta.

Dar tehnologia nu poate egala niciodata " omul" la capitolul " neprevazut" . Asa ca

ati tudinea rusi lor este cea corecta.

Apropo de KISS. Simplu ?! Ce insemna asta?! Pentru ce (pentru cine?!)si, maiales, IN CE SITUATI I trebuie sa fie simplu? Programatori i, ori cat de geniali ar fi , nupot prevedea toate situati il e posibi le si nu stiu dupa ce pri ncipii functioneaza omulcarepoate lua decizi i si in situatii neprevazute. Asta este un fapt. Asa stand lucrur i le nu este

mult mai natural sa dai posibilitatea masinii sa-si urmeze cat mai credincios

superiorul?!

Thanks for this quasi decent answer. But I believe that I was partially understood.

I say that is a shift of paradigm (shift of the point of view on the subject). In short:

- Americans trying to remove 'man' from the airplane (by the technology).

- On the contrary, Russians try to "introduce" the "man" in the airplane (through the use of

technology by certain principles). Both have the same goal: the performance. But technology

can never equal the "man" in the "unexpected" situations (Apollo 13?!). The war (any war) is

full of that kind of situations. So Russia has the correct attitude. And that is easy to see.

Speaking of KISS. "Simple"?! What does that mean?! For "what" (for "who?!) and,especially, in what situations should be "simple"? Programmers, no matter how brilliant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhYhttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY


2/22

would be, cannot foresee all the possible situations and, also, do not know by what principle

works the "human" who can take decisions and in unexpected circumstances. That is a fact.

That being the case is more natural to giving for "machine" the possibility to follow faithful

his superior?!

But that means a shift of paradigm.

Ca sa fiu si mai clar :

Cu siguranta ca sti ti ca pil otii versati schimba viteza dupa sunetul motoru lu i nu dupa

indicatiile turometrul ui.

In avion sunt un million de senzatii care dau indicatii cel putin la fel de precise ca siaparatura de bord. Cu o singura diferenta: senzatiile se manifesta in timp util iarindicatiil e aparatelor pot fi citi te si interpretate intr -un timp mult mai lung. Ori esentiala

este SINCRONI ZAREA in tre om si masina.

To be even more clear:

Surely you know that the versed drivers change the gear at the motor sound not at the

indications of the tachometer.

In the airplane are "a million" of sensations that give indications at least as accurate as the

navigational instruments. With one difference: the sensations it manifest "timely" but the

indications of the devices can be read and interpreted in a much longer time. And we know

that the synchronization between human and machine is essential. Think at this issue: how

must to be built an airplane to give more and accurate sensations in his evolution.

ImixSpb

acum 2 sptmni+Gabriel PascuThank you Gabriel. Your point is interesting. But "Errare humanum est". SU

family implements the concept uses of artificial intelligence as assistant pilot. I think the best

option is a symbiosis of computer and human. The mutual control allows neutralize each

other's mistakes.

KISS is the result a generalization of practical experience. Main goal of principle minimize

chance to commit errors.

I ti multumesc si eu pentr u acest schimb de opini i . Daca " razboiul rece" s-ar f i desfasurat

in astfel de termeni el ar fi fost un lucru bun.

Cred ca simtim reciproc ca suntem apropiati subiectului chiar daca din di rectii di fer ite. Ca

sa imi sustin punctul de vedere o sa te in treb cum defi nesti termenul " eroare" . Si cred ca,

in maniera specifi c ameri cana, o sa-mi r aspunzi: " statistic" .

Eu am sa-ti spun, pe scur t, o poveste adevarata.

La 10 iunie 1944 aviatia ameri cana intentiona sa atace pr in surpri ndere Bucurestiu l.

Pana atunci veneau la o anumi ta ora, din tr -o anumi ta directie, cu avioane Mustang si

Lockeed P-38 L igh ting. In acea zi planuiau sa vina la alta ora, din alta dir ectie si zbur and

la mica inaltime astfel ca radarele germane sa nu le poata detecta. Obiectivul era avioanele

care nu trebuiau sa aibe timp sa se ridice, de la sol. Pentr u ca nu era ora probabil a de atac

la postul de control se afla un of iter de rang i nferi or f oar te relaxat. La un moment dat si -a
http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433


3/22

dat seama ca a lasat nesupravegheat ecranul radarul ui , pentr u o per ioada nedeterminata.

Din refl ex a dat alarma fara vreun motiv aparent.

Avioanele romanesti I AR 80 s-au r idicat conform protocolul ui la 10000 de metri i si la un

moment dat l i s-au indicat tinte ostil e, venind dintr -o directie ciudata, la joasa inal time. De

acolo i -au lovit atat de rau pe amer icani ca acestia s-au retras cu mari pierder i f ara cavreun avion romanesc sa fie atins.

I ntrebare: ofi terul de la postul de control a gresit sau nu?

Vei fi deacord ca raspunsul tine de distanta de la care te uiti la tablou. Cu cat este maimare aceasta distanta cu atat raspunsul este, probabil , mai corect. Dar atentie: acest

postulat de bun simt are sens doar daca punctele tabloului sunt integrate de cel carepriveste. Adica daca le poate vedea SIMULTAN in mod ABSOLUT. Ori mij loacele I T nu

pot face asta (sti ca ele nu pot in terpreta formede aici si f igur il e anti spam). El e poteventual analiza punctele tabloului pe rand, secvential. Chiar daca o fac foarte repedenatura inf ormatiei lor nu implica forma. Sau, altfel spus, nu pot lua decizi i i n functie de

forma, care este adevarata natura a realitatii. Omul poate sa faca asta.Dar , atenti e,numai in conditi il e instinctului de conservare. De aceea nu poate fi in locuit cu tehnologia.

Si acum revin la problema: ar trebui sa te conving ca rusii se folosesc de mi j loacele

tehnologice (avioni ca, I T, etc.) doar pentr u a reda omului posibil itatea de a accesa

forma in niste conditii ostile, nenaturale pentru el. Cum accesul la forma are locexclusiv la nivelul senzati il or ref lexe (nu gandesti cand recunosti o forma) avionu l trebuie

sa transmi ta senzatii pe care pilotul este fortat sa le foloseasca in condi ti i le in care se

simte neprotejat cibernetic (se declanseaza instinctu l de conservare). Cand inveti sa mergi

pe bicicleta cel mai bun profesor este instinctul de conservare nu par in ti i.

Sunt doua abordar i care se bat cap in cap:- tehnol ogia este meni ta sa protejeze pilotul .

- Dar asta se in tampla pr in limitar i care sa-l impiedice sa greseasca (KISS).Crede-ma: din punct de vedere al programator i lor (KISS) Sergey Bogdan a facut un sir

lung de greseli. Ca ofiterul din povestea mea.I ar su 35 a fost constru it ca sa I le permita!

I thank you also for this exchange of views. If the "cold war" would have manifested in such

terms it would have been a good thing.

I think we both feel that each of us is close to the subject but from different directions. To

support my point of view I ask this: how you define the term "error"? And I think, in a

specifically American manner, you will answer me: "statistical".

I want to tell you, in short, a true story.

On 10 June 1944 the US Air Force planned to attack Bucharest by surprise.

Until then ordinarily they come at a certain time, from a certain direction, with Mustang and

Lockheed P-38 Lighting planes. In that day was planning to come at another time, from

another direction, flying at low rise, so that the radar (German) it may not detect them. The

objectives of the American were the planes which supposed not to have the time to lift of

from the ground. Before, because there was the less probable moment of an attack, at the

control center was in shift a very relaxed lower officer. At a certain point he realized that hehas left unattended the radar screen for an indefinite period. Out of reflex he sounded the


4/22

alarm for no apparent reason. Romanian planes, IAR 80, according to the protocol, amounted

rapidly to 30,000 feet.

In the same time were indicated hostile targets, coming from a strange direction, at low rise.

From their heights IAR 80 have hit Americans so badly that they retreated with great loss

without reaching any of the Romanian airplanes.

Question: control center officer was wrong or not?

You will be agreeing that the answer depends by the "distance" from where you look at the

picture.

The bigger will be the distance, the more probably the answer will be correct. But beware: this

postulate makes sense only if the "points" of the picture are integrated by the person that looks at it. I

mean, if he can see them simultaneously, in every situation (in an ABSOLUT WAY). IT devices

cannot do that (knowing that they cannot interpret shapes - i.e. anti-spam pictures). They can analyze

only one "point" of the picture at a certain moment, sequentially. Even if they do this very fast the

nature of their information NOT involving the "shape". Or, in other words, they cannot make

decisions based on "shape", which is the true nature of reality. Humans can do that. Attention: only

thru preservation instinct.

Now back to the question: I should convince you that the Russians are using technological

means (avionics, IT, etc.) just to improve the human ability to access to the "shape'', in some

hostile conditions, unnatural for him. However the access to "shape" occurs only thru the

reflex manifestations of sensations (you don't thinking during the process of recognizing a

"shape"). The airplane shall transmit sensations to the pilot, which is forced to use them,

because the KISS don't help him and so he feel unsafe (preservation instinct is triggered).

When you learn to ride a bike the best teacher is the preservation instinct, not your parents.

There are two opposite approaches:- Technology is designed to protect the pilot (to pull it out from the hostile plane).

- This it's happens thru the limitations meant to prevent him from "mistakes" (KISS).

Believe me: in terms of KISS creators Sergey Bogdan made a long line of "mistakes". Like

the relaxed officer from my story.

And su 35 was built to allow that!

Now back to the question: should convince you that the Russians are using technological

means (avionics, IT, etc.) just to play the human ability to access' form '' in some hostile

conditions, unnatural for him. How access to "shape" occurs only in the sensations reflexes

(not think you recognize a form) shall transmit sensations airplane pilot is forced to use in

conditions where they feel unsafe cyber (preservation instinct is triggered). When you learn to

ride a bike is the best teacher preservation instinct not fathers.

There are two opposite approaches:

- Technology is designed to protect the pilot.

- But it's the limitations that prevent him from "mistakes" (KISS).

Believe me: in terms of programmers (KISS) Sergey Bogdan took a long line of "mistakes".

As the officer of my story doing.

And su 35 I was built to allow them!


5/22

Chiar dac nu mai eti interesat s comunici cu mine se pare c poi primi i transmiteunde trebuie un mesaj important; americanii au pierdut "rzboiul rece!Cu siguran cunoti (sau te poi informa) despre oameni cu capaciti speciale (de ex.Nina Kul aghina sau chiar americani, James Hydrick i alii). De asemenea este cunoscutc aceti oameni explic faptul c respectivele capaciti le are oricine. Ei doar le

-audezvoltat pr in antrenament.

Deci, acele capaciti sunt proprieti intrinseci ale VIEII.De asemenea este cunoscut c ruii au dezvoltat ntregi institute de cercetri n jurulacestor persoane. De ce credei c au fcut asta ? Pentru ale implementa n industriamilitar!Unde vreau s ajung? Ei i-au ispitit pe americani s-i dezvolte tehnologia care este undrum nchi s.

Am ncercat s explic asta n rspunsurile anterioare.Ruii au investit n cercetarea VIEII. Ei nu aveau tehnologie. Dup '90 au pr imi t-o.

Acum au tehnologie plus cunotine despre VIA pe care americanii n-aufost interesainiciodat s le obin. De ce? Acestea nu aduc bani! Tehnologia ns aduce bani. Dar estelimitat principial.Aa c ruii au sacrificat "regina (comunismul) dar au ctigat "rzboiul rece.Lucru pe care voi nu-l realizai nc. Au fost ntotdeauna mai buni ahiti ca voi. Ausisteme militare cu care utilizatorii comunic psihotronic. Iar ceea ce vedei n acestmaterial este o dovad (citatul cu afirmaia lui Bogdan referitoare la relaia lui cu avionultrebuie neleas la propriu ). Eu sunt r omn. Dar nu-mi plac ruii. i de aceea ncerc s vtransmit c suntei ntr-un per icol imens, pe care ni ci nu vi-l imaginai. Ca i noi, romnii,

de fapt.

Even if you're no more interested to communicating with me it seems that you can get and

send an important message: Americans have lost "the Cold War"!

Surely you know (or you can inform) about people with special abilities (i.e. Nina Kulagina

or Americans, James Hydrick and others). It is also known that these people explain that

everyone has such capacities. They only have developed them through training.

So, those abilities are some intrinsic properties of life.

It is also known that the Russians have developed very big research institutes around these

people. Why do you think they did this? To implement the results in the military industry!

What I'm trying to say? They have enticed the Americans to develop the "technology" which

is a dead end.

I tried to explain that in previous answers.

The Russians have invested in researching of life. They had no technology at the time. After

90's they had received it.

Now they have the technology plus knowledge about life which Americans were not

interested to achieved. Why? This knowledge does not make money! But technology makes

money. But, like I said, it is fundamentally limited.

So the Russians have sacrificed the "queen" (the communism) but won "the Cold War". The

thing you didn't realize yet. They were always the best chess players. They have militarysystems with the users it communicates by psychotronic processes. What you see in this


6/22

material is evidence (the quote of Bogdan's statement, regarding his relationship with the

plane which is alive - must be understood literally). I am Romanian. But I do not like

Russians. And so I try to tell that you are in a huge danger. Like us, Romanians, actually are.

ImixSpb

acum 2 sptmni

+Gabriel PascuSorry Gabriel. Was busy a little bit.

"you are in a huge danger"

Looks like a great exaggeration. Russia has a huge territory, any natural resources no

limited. It's country of paradoxes. Programmers and mathematicians world-class but

not a global brand such as Google. Top level scientists, engineers, inventors and

backward industry. Indeed Russia is developing military technology but it's not a

priority.

I am Russian )))

OK! Daca este adevarat m-ai pacali t rau de tot! I ar eu sunt greu de pacali t. Raman la

convingerea ca, cel mul t, esti rus de origine. Nu ai psihologia unu i rus! Dar ai o minte

organi zata. Dar cum am spus in ce ti -am scris pana acum se pare ca asta nu este o calitate.

Si nu incerc deloc sa te j ignesc. Eu am facut in tradevar af irmati i socante. Dar la cele

in tradevar socante pentr u o minte organizata nu te-ai referi t: i .e. ca cea despre formal ismul

cauzal care este o abordare total gresita asupra reali tatii (vezi comportarea sistemelor I .T.

fata de " forma" lucruri lor pentru care nici macar " marele" Google n-are solutie). N-ai

cum sa minimal izezi ceea ce stie mul ta lume: faptul ca rusi au consumat prea mul ta

energie pentr u studiul f enomenelor paranormale ca sa o f i f acut doar de amoru l ar tei. Sini ci f aptul ca in occident fenomenul n-a f ost interpretat corect. Sti ce cred eu? Cred ca esti

in tegrat i n sistem undeva in occident (poate nu in America). Si ca mesaju l meu si-a facut

efectul. T i-a trebui t ceva timp sa-l anali zezi si sa prepari un anumit raspuns. Care este in

asa fel dozat ca sa ma faca sa nu-l mai transmi t de acum in colo. Dar occidentul face

aceeasi greseala ca si in cazul OZN. I ncearca sa bage lucrur il e neplacute sub pres. Nu

intelege ca aici nu mai este vorba despre contr ol sau bani . Este vorba despre supr avitu ire.

OK! If it's true you fooled me very badly! And I'm very hard to be fooled. I will continue to

believe that, at the most, you are of Russian origin. You don't have the psychology of a

Russian! But you have an organized mind. Like I said in what I've written so far it seems that

this is not a quality. And I not try to offend you at all. I made shocking statements indeed. But

the really shocking statements for an organized mind you haven't mentioned it: i.e. like that

the causally formalisms are a wrong approach to reality (see the behavior of the IT systems

concerning the "shape" of things, for which even the "great" Google has no solution). You

can't minimize what many people know: that the Russians have consumed too much energy

for the study of paranormal phenomena that this to be eventually done only for the love of art.

And you can't minimize also the fact that in West the phenomenon was not correctly

interpreted. You know what I think? You must be integrated into the system somewhere in the

West (maybe in America, maybe not). And my message has made its effect. You have neededsome time to analyze it and prepare a specific answer. The answer is dosed as to stop me to no


7/22

longer convey this great exaggeration(nobody not answer at all at "a great exaggeration").

The West makes the same mistake as with the UFO phenomenon. Try to put unpleasant things

under the carpet. He does not understand that this is not about control or money. It's about

survival.

ImixSpb

acum 2 sptmni

+Gabriel PascuAnd yet i'm from Russia)

Just closer to me the language of logic mathematics and physics and not very interesting

politicians delirium. Russian fighting jets not have under the hood psychics,

parapsychologists etc. )

Well-known fate of US Defense Minister J. Forrestal (1892-1949) and his legendary

phrase " The Russians are coming". Paranoia is a bad counselor for building

partnerships between countries.

Short question. What do you think is "psychology of a Russian"?

Imi cer scuze dar cred ca ai inceput sa-ti pierzi un pic controlu l. Daca tu crezi ca eu fac

afi rmatii exagerate atunci tu faci afi rmatii cel putin la fel de ciudate (ca sa nu zic

deplasate) ca mine. Pe ce te bazezi cand esti atat de sigur ca rusii nu folosesc parapsihologi

in tehnologia mi li tara? In nici o situatie, nimeni, n-ar face o astfel de afi rmatie. Chiar daca

ar f i adevarat?! I n or ice caz n-ar fi facuta de un rus (si aici am raspuns si la scur ta ta

in trebare, adaugand ca citatul doct din Forr estal te face la f el de rus ca mine). A sustine ca

rusii nu folosesc parapsihologi in tehnologia mil itar a este la fel de li psit de bun simt ca

atunci cand cineva afi rma ca nu exista fenomenul OZN.

Majori tatea armatelor lumii folosesc parapsihologi. I ar af irmatia asta o fac pentru ca amavut contact direct cu fenomenul, in Romania. Iar marea majoritate a publicului este

deacord cu asta. Noutatea care a fost dezvoltata de rusi cu mar i efor tur i timp de peste 60 de

ani este ca abil itatil e respective au fost imbinate cu tehnologia " clasica" .

I'm sorry but I think that you started to lose your control a little. If you think that I make

exaggerated statements then you make statements at least as strange (not to say

inappropriate). On which arguments you're so sure that the Russians do not use

parapsychologists in military technology? In no case, no one would make such a statement.

Even if the fact it were really true?! In any case it wouldn't be made by a Russian (and here I

answered at your short question, adding that the scholarly quote after Forrestal makes you

Russian just like I am). Saying that Russians do not use parapsychologists in military

technology is as devoid of common sense as when someone says that UFOs don't exist.

Most armies use parapsychologists. And this statement I do it because I had direct contact

with the phenomenon in Romania. The vast majority of the public is agreeing with that. The

novelty which was developed by the Russians with great efforts for over 60 years is that these

parapsychological skills were combined with the "classic" technology. And this makes their

technology from another era ("alive" as Segey Bogdan says about his plane).

ImixSpb

acum o sptmn
http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433


8/22

+Gabriel PascuMention J. Forrestal primarily reflects my attitude to various

conspiracy theories and far-fetched problems. Possibly phenomena of which you speak

are real but it's not my knowledge domain. I've heard the phrase S. Bogdan "alive". In

Russian it has quite a different context.

Uite ce este: par i o persoana decenta si tocmai de aceea m-am aventurat in tr -un dialog pe

care mi l -am propus sa fie constructiv. Deja pierderea controlu lui pe care am menti onat-o

ieri se manif esta la dimensiuni penibil e (scuze, o spun pentr u binele tau). Risti sa te faci de

ras. Nu ma supar daca nu-mi mai raspunzi (subli ni ez: pentru binele tau). Mesaju l meu a

ajuns acolo unde mi-am propus. Sergey Bogdan nu s-a expr imat in rusa ci in engleza

(http://r t.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fi ghter-792/ ) iar contextul era foar te clar.

Pr iveste si https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fc , 1min 45sec. Ai sa descoperi

imagini care te-ar putea duce cu gandul la mani festari patologice din par tea unui pil ot de

incercare in r elati a sa cu avionu l. Asta daca n-ar f i vorba despre o relatie reala pe care

doar un creier spalat bine o poate pune pe seama teoriei conspiratiei.

Look: You seem to be a decent person and that's why I had ventured into (I hope) a

constructive dialogue. The loss of control that I already mentioned yesterday it manifest at an

inappropriate size (sorry, I say it for your own well). You risk embarrassing yourself. I do not

mind if you don't answering me again (I stress this: for your own well). My message it was

sent already where I intended to. Sergey Bogdan has not expressed in Russian but in English

(http://rt.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fighter-792/) and the context was clear enough.Look also athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fc, 1min 45sec.

You'll find images in which we can observe some strange manifestations from a pilot test in

relation with the plane (manifestations which can easily be interpreted that they are

pathological). That it could be happens only if it would not be just a real (natural?!)

relationship, which only a brain hardly washed can ascribe to a conspiracy theory (syntagma

which makes sense as long as you dont have proofs). But that it's really happens!

If that kind of "crazy" pilots can fly the planes like Bogdan do, the things are very bad for

the West.

Daca este una si aceeasi persoana ImixSpb cu atunci am avut dreptate: NU

ESTI RUS! Si cu atat mai putin poti spune ca gandesti ca un rus. Nu stiu ruseste. Am folosit

traducerea automata si cred ca vrei sa spui ca "Da! Pilotii rusi sunt cam nebuni!" Este o

discutie foarte lunga despre cum definim "nebunia" (apropo, ce crezi Nina Kulagina era

nebuna?). Si nu asta trebuie discutat aici. Ci faptul ca rusii au reusit sa creze un dezechilibru

militar concret pe care Vestul refuza sa-l accepte pentru ca n-au nici cea mai mica sansa sa-l

contrabalanseze cu mijloace exclusiv tehnologice.

If is one and the same person with ImixSpb then I was right: YOU ARE

NOT an RUSSIAN! And the less we can say that you think like a Russian. On the contrary!

I do not know Russian. I used the automatic translation and I think you try to mean that the

"Yes, the Russian pilots are pretty crazy!" It is a very long discussion about how we candefine "insanity" (by the way, what do you think, Nina Kulagina was crazy?). And this is not
http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://rt.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fighter-792/http://rt.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fighter-792/http://rt.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fighter-792/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01exd_mZ4fchttp://rt.com/news/bourget-russian-su-35-fighter-792/http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135


9/22

to be discussed here. The point is that the Russians were able to create a military imbalance

which the West refuse to accept because they have not the slightest chance to counterbalance

it, exclusively by technological means. I'm not on the Russians side. But you can't defeat your

enemy if you not consider his qualities also!

ImixSpb

acum o sptmn

Gabriel, suspicion is not conducive to analyticity. I don't know . Nevertheless, he is

right. Serious discussion about secret technologies on YouTube look like a funny joke.

Headlines of tabloid is bad advisers.

Hi from Russia )

Gabriel Pascu

acum o sptmn

+ImixSpbI've never seen a more adversarial phrase.

What smells like a threat ...

I will not go into details which don't belong here, on youtube. But briefly, the reality is

holographic (the "point" contains the "whole"). Or, the "point" of the space is as strong as the

"whole" Universe is. And the wording is not a metaphorical one. What I mean is that the

Russians have crossed a border in an unknown direction. Neither them themselves don't know

where it goes. That's why they are so dangerous. For us and ultimately for themselves.

N-am vazut vreodata o formul are mai contr adictori e.

Care mi roase a amenintare...

N-am sa intr u in detali i care nu-si au locul pe youtube. Dar , pe scur t reali tatea este

hologrfi ca (punctul contine " intregul" ). Sau punctul este la fel de putern ic ca " intr egul" .I ar f ormularea nu este metafor ica. Ce vreau sa spun este ca rusii au trecut o granita dar nu

stiu nici ei unde au ajuns. de aceea sunt foar te per iculosi. I n ultima instanta si pentru ei

insisi.

Gabriel Pascu

acum 23 de ore (editat)+ImixSpbLook! Af ter my speech might say that I am on the Russians side. Wrong! I am

Romanian and I do not like them at all (for historical r easons - M oldova etc). What I try is

to make you understand that the Russians, paradoxically, have won the " cold war" and

the West does not see th is.

Sur ely you know (or you can inf orm) about people with special abi li ties (i .e. Nina

Ku lagina or Americans, James Hydrick and others). I t is also known that these people

explain that everyone has such capacities. They onl y have developed them through

training.

So, those abil iti es are some intr insic properties of l if e.

I t is also known that the Russians have developed very big research insti tutes around these

people. Why do you think they did th is? To implement the resul ts in the mil itary industry!

What I 'm trying to say? They have enti ced the Americans to develop the " technology"

which is a dead end.

I wil l tr y to explain that below.The Russians have invested in researching of li fe. They had no technology at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101204030600309397135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVlmoNtcyhY&google_comment_id=z135jvzzbwi2y5dzs04cfbzywwb5tzwazcohttp://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/118432753172957251433


10/22

Af ter 90's they had received it.

Now they have the technology plus knowledge about l if e which Americans were not

interested to achieved. Why? Thi s knowledge does not make money! But technology makes

money. But, l ike I said, it i s fundamentall y limited.

So the Russians have sacri fi ced the " queen" (the communism) but won " the Cold War" .The thing you didn' t reali ze yet. They were always the best chess players. They have

mi l i tary systems with which the users it commun icates by psychotroni c processes. What you

see in thi s mater ial i s evidence (the quote of Bogdan' s statement, regarding h is relationship

with the plane which is alive - must be understood li terall y).I want to tel l you, in shor t, a true story.

On 10 June 1944 the US Ai r Force planned to attack Bucharest by surpri se.

Until then ordinari ly they come at a cer tain time, fr om a cer tain direction, with M ustang

and Lockheed P-38 Lighting planes. In that day was planning to come at another time,

fr om another dir ection, f lying at low r ise, so that the radar (German) it may not detect

them. The objectives of the American were the planes which supposed not to have the time

to l if t of fr om the ground. Before, because there was the less probable moment of an attack,

at the control center was in shif t a very relaxed lower of fi cer. At a certain point he realized

that he has left unattended the radar screen for an indefi ni te per iod. Out of refl ex he

sounded the alarm for no apparent reason. Romanian planes, IAR 80, according to the

protocol, amoun ted rapidly to 30,000 feet.

I n the same time were indicated hosti le targets, coming f rom a strange dir ection, at l ow

rise. From their heights IAR 80 have hit Americans so badly that they retreated with greatloss without reaching any of the Romanian ai rplanes.

Question: control center off icer was wrong or not?You wil l be agreeing that the answer depends by the " distance" fr om where you look at

the picture.The bigger wi l l be the distance, the more probably the answer wil l be correct. But beware:

thi s postulate makes sense only if the " points" of the pictur e are in tegrated by the person

that looks at it. I mean, i f he can see them simul taneously, in every si tuation (i n an

ABSOLUT WAY). I T devices cannot do that (knowing that they cannot interpret shapes -

i.e. anti -spam pictures). They can analyze only one " point" of the pictur e at a certain

moment, sequential ly. Even if they do this very fast the nature of their information NOT

involving the " shape" . Or, in other words, they cannot make decisions based on " shape" ,

which is the true nature of r eali ty. Humans can do that. Attention: only thr u preservation

instinct.

Now back to the question: I should convince you that the Russians are using

technological means (avionics, I T, etc.) just to improve the human abil ity to access to the

" shape' ' , in some hostile conditions, unnatural for him. However the access to " shape"

occurs only thr u the refl ex mani festations of sensations (you don' t thinking dur ing the

process of r ecogni zing a " shape" ). The airplane shal l transmi t sensations to the pi lot,

whi ch i s forced to use them, because the KISS don' t help him and so he feel unsafe

(preservation i nstinct is tri ggered). When you l earn to ride a bike the best teacher is the

preservation instinct, not your parents.There are two opposite approaches:


11/22

- Technology is designed to protect the pil ot (to pull it out fr om the hosti leunnatural,inuman - plane).

- This it' s happens thru the limitations meant to prevent him fr om " mistakes" (KI SS).

Believe me: in terms of KISS creators Sergey Bogdan made a long line of " mistakes" . Like

the relaxed off icer from my story.And Su 35 was buil t to all ow that!

Now careful ly!

I said earl ier that the maneuverable plane at low speeds can successful ly avoid the

missiles!

But thi s involves a completely dif ferent ki nd of f lying the plane. Thi s also involves a

special r elati onship of the pil ot with the plane.

And the Russians have the necessary knowledge in th is regard.

The Russians are using technological means (avionics, IT, etc.) just to improve thehuman abil ity to access to the " shape' ' , in some hostil e conditions, unnatural for him.

However the access to " shape" (incomparably faster) occur s only thru the refl ex

mani festations of sensations (you don' t think ing during the process of r ecognizing a

" shape" ). The plane SHALL TRANSMIT SENSATI ONS to the pilot, which i s forced to

use them, because the KISS doesnt help him and so he feel unsafe (preservation instinct istriggered).During of a steady fl igh t a super tech ai rplane doesn' t transmit anything to the pil ot (he

can sleep?!). I s not the case of Russian ai rplanes!

They, deli berately, i t use a " poor" system f ly by wire. I n the same conditi ons (steady

fl ight) each of axes of the degrees of fr eedom moves on a circular shape (forming a cone).

Even i f the resul t of these movements is a steady fl ight, at certain ampl i tudes theyphysical ly transmit to the pilot a state of discomfort (uncertainty), which he subconsciously

perceives it, and which i nvolving the preservation instinct (maintains the pil ot in a

permanent state of alert). Important to note is that for any of the dir ections of the axes of

the degrees of freedom at a time, the systems works in a ideally shape, per fectly

synchronized.

When there appears a special situation, then the refl exes reactions corresponding of the

pil ot (defaul t most eff ective) appear long befor e the conscious reactions.

However, they didn' t have the necessary ampli tude to perform some specif ic commands.

Bu t suf fi ce to be adding at one of the var ian ts which is constantly scanned by the plane.

Then there appears a positive feedback between subconscious physiological ref lexes and

the manifestations of the control devices as to reach a true command, consciously

perceived, in a very shor t time and, especial ly, after an i deal protocol (the gross errors are

canceled). I n terms of conscious the pilot feels li ke the plane provides hi s intentions in a

perf ect shape: l ike IS AL I VE! And that only duri ng the special situations! Only then he

feels a special psychological comfort.

I saw on youtube that a Russian test pi lot stroked hi s plane...

And so the missil es are avoidable ... I n volleys or not


12/22


13/22

forma, care este adevarata natura a realitatii. Omul poate sa faca asta. Dar, atentie,numai in conditi il e instinctului de conservare. De aceea nu poate fi in locuit cu tehnologia.

Si acum revin la problema: ar trebui sa te conving ca rusii se folosesc de mi j loacele

tehnologice (avioni ca, I T, etc.) doar pentr u a reda omului posibi li tatea de a accesa

forma in niste conditii ostile, nenaturale pentru el. Cum accesul la forma are locexclusiv la nivelul senzati il or refl exe (nu gandesti cand recunosti o forma) avionul trebuie

sa transmi ta senzatii pe care pil otul este fortat sa le foloseasca in condi ti i le in care se

simte neprotejat cibernetic (se declanseaza instinctu l de conservare). Cand inveti sa mergi

pe bicicleta cel mai bun profesor este instinctul de conservare nu par in ti i.

Sunt doua abordar i care se bat cap in cap:

- tehnol ogia este meni ta sa protejeze pilotul.

- Dar asta se in tampla prin limitar i care sa-l impiedice sa greseasca (KISS).Crede-ma: din punct de vedere al programator i lor (KISS) Sergey Bogdan a facut un sir

lung de greseli. Ca ofiterul din povestea mea.I ar su 35 a fost constru it ca sa I le permita!

Acum, atentie!

Spuneam anterior ca avionul manevrabil la viteze mici poate evita cu succes rachetele!

Dar asta impli ca un pi lotaj cu totul difer it de cel clasic. Care, de asemenea impli ca o

relati e speciala a pil otului cu avionul . Si rusii detin cunostintele necesare in acest sens.

Reiau: rusii se folosesc de mijloacele tehnologice (avionica, IT, etc.) doar pentru a redaomului posibilitatea de a accesa forma in niste conditii ostile, nenaturale pentru el.Cum accesul la forma are loc exclusiv la nivelul senzati il or refl exe (nu gandesti candrecunosti o forma) avionul trebuie sa transmita senzatii pe care pil otul este for tat sa le

foloseasca in condi ti i le in care se simte neprotejat cibernetic (se declanseaza instinctu l deconservare).I n timpul unui zbor stabil izat un avion super tehnologizat nu transmite nimic pil otulu i

(acesta poate sa se cul ce?! ). Nu este cazul avioanelor rusesti !

Acestea, in mod deli berat, folosesc un sistem f lybywire " defectuos" . I n aceleasi conditi i

(zbor stabil izat) axele tutur or gradelor de li bertate nu sunt fi xe ci se misca pe un contur

cir cular (f ormand un con). Chiar daca rezul tanta acestor mi scari este un zbor stabil izat, la

anumite ampli tudini ele transmit f izic pilotului o stare de discomfor t (nesiguranta), pe care

acesta o percepe la nivel subconstient, si care implica instinctu l de conservare (mentine

pil otul in tr -o stare permanenta de alerta). Important de subl in iat este faptul ca pentr u

ori care din dir ectii le pe care se afl a axele gradelor de li ber tate la un moment dat sistemele

functioneaza coordonat, perfect sincronizat. Atunci cand apare o situatie speciala

mani festari le fiziol ogice refl exe corespunzatoare (impli cit cele mai eficiente) apar cu mult

inain tea celor constiente. El e n-au insa ampli tudinea necesara pentru efectuarea unor

comenzi concrete. Dar sunt sufi ciente pentr u a se adauga uneia din variantele pe care

avionul le scaneaza permanent. I n in ter ior ul conu lu i se mani festa feedback-u l pozitiv,

tendinta spre dezechi li bru a avionului . De asemenea vari atia parametr il or corespunzatori

" situatiei speciale" creste relativ l a miscarea avionu lu i care, datori ta refl exului , o are ca

referi nta. Asa incat " situatia speciala" si reactia refl exa a pilotulu i + miscarea

corespunzatoare a avionului apar SIMULTAN pentru ni velu l constient al pil otulu i. Tot


14/22

acest context este interpretat la ni velu l constient al pilotului (ul ter ior mecanismelor r ef lexe)

ca si cum avionul ar f i l uat decizii corecte de unul singur. Ca si cum ar f i VIU.

Este vorba despre un feed back pozitiv in tre manif estarea f iziologica subconstienta si

mani festarea avionului , care creste ampli tudinea ambelor , astfel ca se ajunge la evoluti a

concreta, perceputa constient, intr -un timp foarte scur t si, mai ales, conform unui protocolideal (erori le grosolane sunt anulate). Si asta in timpul situatii lor speciale! De abia atunci

acesta simte un confort psihic deosebit.

Am vazut pe youtube cum un pil ot de incercare rus isi mangaia avionul ...

Si asa pot fi evitate rachetele...In salva sau nu...

John Nguyen

acum 6 zile

+Gabriel PascuAn F-16 pilot also dodged 7 SAM missiles in Operation Desert Storm, but the

USAF admits that those SAMs were from the 70s. The Su-35 might be able to dodge a AIM-9

Sidewinder, but the pilot should not expect to dodge even the first incoming AIM-120D

AMRAAM. Weighing just 18 kg, it has 180 km range at Mach 4 speeds. As of now and into

the foreseeable future, no other missile can match the AIM-120D. It will outmaneuver a Su-

35, and it would not be ideal for the Su-35's pilot to assume that he can survive one of them,

much less a volley of them.

Also, the US has spent MUCH more money on studying people with special abilities. Look

up Stargate Project. Russia has a great marketing team trying to make it seem like they can

keep up with the US. However, this topic has been around for nearly a hundred years, andnobody believes the any physic powers have any foundation. I can tell you are not an

engineer.

It would take 8 Russia's to match the current strength of the US. I have heard that Russians

say they can defeat the US military easily, and then I hear nearly every military expert in the

world admit that the entire world combined cannot defeat the US military. Weaker nations,

such as Russia, will resort to nuclear weapons. That's why the US has some of the most

developed anti-ballistic missile technology on Earth. It makes Russian weapons so inert that

Russia is SCARED of a missile shield in Europe! To me, I don't think missile shields are a

bad thing. Russia should further develop their missile shield instead of just developing

weapons to kill.

Paradoxically or not, I believe Russia has lost the Cold War. That's what the West believes,

that's what China believes...Africa, South America, Austrialia, even the South Pole! They all

believe the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. The Russians see it too, so maybe it's just you

that doesn't see this? If Russia won the Cold War and the US lost, then I wouldn't want to win

again...

Eviti sensul celor spuse de mine: o tinta subsonica este usor de lovit daca are o traiectorieprevizibi la. Daca nu atunci racheta este cu atat mai i neficienta cu cat este mai rapida.


15/22

Gandeste-te la un boxer care care evita lovitur il e foarte puterni ce ale adversaru lui de pe

picioare, stand pe loc...

"The Su-35 won't have the altitude or the kinetic momentum to dodge the volleys of missiles,

much less have a chance at fleeing."

You avoid the meaning of what I said: a subsonic target is easy to be hit only if he has a

predictable trajectory. If not, then the missile is the more inefficient with as the greater speed

it has. Think of a boxer who avoids the very strong and fast blows of his opponent, by

remaining still on his feet and moving only with his torso...

Then "to dodge the volleys of missiles"?!

Tu realizezi ce spui?! Inseamna ca un singur Su 35 poate lasa dezbracate multe F 22. Este un

soi de sacrificiu de dama la sah. Vor sti oare pilotii din F 22 cate din avioanele Su 35 detectate

sunt simple drone?! Dupa ce salvele se vor fi epuizat pilotii de pa Su 35 vor culege F 22 ca pe

spicele de grau..

Do you realize what you're saying ?! It means that only one of Su 35 can leave "naked" many

of F 22. Could be a kind of a queen sacrifice at chess. The pilots of the F 22 which fires with

volleys of missiles can really know how many of the detected super maneuverable Su 35 are

simple drones?! After the volleys will be exhausted the pilots of Su 35 will reap F 22 as the

ears of wheat...

Sa presupunem ca ai dreptate. Dar asta se ntmpl doar cand Su 35 "fuge" de F 35. Nustiu de ce nu observi ca Su 35 nu este construi t sa fuga ci sa stea, manevrand efi cient pe

spatii reduse. Adica o schimba dir ectia atunci cand racheta este atat de aproape incat nu

mai poate manevra in urmari rea avionului .

Nu te face ca nu intelegi (r isti sa par i prost). Exemplul cu boxerul se referea la faptul ca

cu cat viteza (a lovitur ii - a rachetei) este mai mare cu atat ea isi poate schimba directia

doar pe distante mai lungi (e vorba tot de fi zica - eu am o diploma in f izica, tu ai asa

ceva?!). Adi ca nu o prea poti schimba. Tocmai de aceea cel care se deplaseaza mai incet

(boxerul care se fereste) o poate schimba pe distante mai scur te. Dupa nume ar trebui sa-ti

aduci aminte ce s-a intamplat cu F 4 si M ig 21 in Vietnam?!

Revenind, distantele concrete la care poate actiona racheta (chiar far a contact) fac

efi ciente astfel de miscari imprevizibil e de evitare la viteze mici (un al t exemplu: toreadorul

si taurul la corida?! ). Si apoi te contrazici singur: daca astfel de situatii n-ar fi fost in

favoarea avionulu i care se misca incet si imprevizibil nu s-ar f i i nventat ti rul cu salve de

rachete...Care, asa cum este evident, lasa F 22 fara muniti e in conditi il e in care o parte din

Su 35 detectate pot fi simple drone. I ar F 22 sunt penibil e in lupta la mica viteza...

Don't play like you don't understand (you risk to seems stupid). Example with the boxer it

referred to the fact that the higher speed (of the kick - of the missile) it give the possibility to

change direction only over longer distances (it's all physics - I have a degree in physics, you

have something like that?!). In other words, it can't be change. On the contrary, you said:Try to imagine that you are in a racecar trying to dodge an incoming missile. You shouldn't


16/22

try to drive slow to dodge that missile! You try to drive as fast as possible in order to use that

momentum to make the turn when the missile arrives - like the drivers it speeds before

cornering?! Looking from a physically (INERTIALLY) point of vue that (sorry) is shit.

Therefore the slower and imprevisible moving (of the boxer who try avoids the blow) may

permit a change of direction in a shorter distance. By the name you should remember what

happened to F 4 by Mig 21 in Vietnam?!

Returning, the unpredictable movements at low speeds (another example: the torero and the

bull at corrida?!) give always enough room that the concrete distances at which the missile

can act (even without contact) not to be effective. And so you contradict yourself: "the plane

that moves slowly and unpredictably is vulnerable" you said. If such a situation wouldn't have

been in favor of the plane that moves slowly and unpredictably would not be invented the

action with volleys of missiles ... Which, as is obvious, let the F 22's without ammo, given

that some of the detected Su 35 can be simple drone. And F 22 is helpless in the dogfight at

slow speed...

Singurul lucru care merge bine cand este lasat sa mearga singur este viata f ratioare.

Omule, dovedeste-mi te rog, ca nu esti doar un idiot care mai este si pl atit pentru asta.

Raspunde-mi la urmatoarea intr ebare: cunosti (poti modela) procesele care ti-au dat

posibil itatea sa scri ineptii le pe care le-ai scr is. Presupunerea mea este ca nu! Atunci cum

poti discerne daca sunt corecte? Convigerea ca orice afi rmatie proprie reprezin ta adevarul ,

far a echivoc, este, dupa cum ar trebui sa sti , un fenomen patologic. Ratiunea ramane un

proces constructi v (chi ar daca este necunoscut) doar atata vreme cat este constienta de asta

si de faptul ca ea poate face doar niste alegeri , in necunostinta de cauza, care impl ici t pot

f i gresite. Ceea ce reprosez eu Occidentului este faptul ca el se afla in aceasta fazapatologica: este 100% sigur ca are dreptate (ca castigat " razboiu l r ece" ). Si asta este o

ati tudine care te impiedica sa vezi altceva decat ceea ce te astepti deja sa vezi (ca rusii sun t

ni ste handicapati care consuma fondur i si energie intelectuala doar pentru a gasi un mod

mai sof isticat de a se sinucide in eventuali tatea unu i r azboi). Deli rezi f oarte doct in

momentul in care nici o argumentatie clasica (mi li tara, sti in ti fi ca etc) nu poate expl ica ceea

ce vezi in acest video. Ar gumentele tale suna cam asa: daca nici un avion occidental nu

poate face asa ceva atunci ceea ce face Su 35 este automat o prostie.

I n ani ' 80 in Vest se vehi culau niste in formati i despre un motor racheta rusesc (nk 33) pe

care " special isti" vostr i le considerau propaganda pentr u ca indicau niste cali tati de

domeniul fantasticului pentru ei. Pana l -au incercat pe propri il e bancur i de proba in anii

'90...

In 80's, in the West was convey some information about a Russian rocket engine (nk 33)

about which your "experts" it considered that was only propaganda because those information

has indicated some senseless (to them) qualities of nk 33. This was until they tried nk 33 on

their own test benches in the 90s...

Your arguments go like this: if any Western plane can't do what Su 35 is doing automatically

what the Russian plane do is a foolish thing to do.

And that is only for the simple minds.Man, you must prove that you're not just an idiot who is also paid for that.


17/22

Just answer at this simple question: do you have a model of the processes that permit to write

the nonsense that you wrote (something like what the lifecan be).

My guess is that: you haven't!

So how can you discern whether your statements are correct? The unequivocally belief that

only your own statements are real is, as you should know, a pathological phenomenon. The

reasoning remains a constructive process (even if is unknown) only if it's aware of that

situation: it can only make some choices, always arguable, which, by default, may be wrong.

It is delirious your very scholarly diatribe: the classical arguments (military, scientific, etc.)

can't explain what it's seen in this video.

The only thing that goes better when it's left to go alone is the life bro!

And what it appears to be seen on this video seems to be real life.

Lets tryto explain that.

Any picture is seen only if the "points" of the picture are integrated by the person that looks

at it.

I mean, if he can see them simultaneously, in every situation (in an ABSOLUT WAY).

IT devices cannot do that (knowing that they cannot interpret shapes - i.e. anti-spam

pictures). They can analyze only one "point" of the picture at a certain moment, sequentially.

Even if they do this very fast the nature of their information NOT involving the "shape". Or,

in other words, they cannot make decisions based on "shape", which is the true nature of

reality.

Humans can do that. Attention: only thru preservation instinct!

Now back to the question: I should convince you that the Russians are using technological

means (avionics, IT, etc.) just to improve the human ability to access to the "shape'', in some

hostile conditions, unnatural for him. However the access to "shape" occurs only thru thereflex manifestations of sensations (you don't thinking during the process of recognizing a

"shape"). The plane shall transmit sensations to the pilot, which is forced to use them, because

the KISS doesnthelp him (in the Russian planes) and so he feel unsafe (preservation instinct

is triggered). When you learn to ride a bike the best teacher is the preservation instinct, not

your parents.

There are two opposite approaches:

- Technology is designed to protect the pilot (to pull it out from the hostileunnatural,

inhuman - plane). Thats the Western approach.

Thats implies limitationsmeant to prevent the pilot from "mistakes" (KISS).

- Believe me: in terms of KISS creators Sergey Bogdan made a long line of "mistakes" in a

body with his plane.

And Su 35 was built to allow that! Thats the Russian approach.

Now carefully!

I said earlier that the maneuverable plane at low speeds can successfully avoid the missiles!

But this involves a completely different kind of flying the plane. This also involves a special

relationship of the pilot with the plane.

And the Russians have the necessary knowledge in this regard.

The Russians are using technological means (avionics, IT, etc.) just to improve the human

ability to access to the "shape'', in some hostile conditions, unnatural for him. However theaccess to "shape" (incomparably faster) occurs only thru the reflex manifestations of


18/22

sensations (you don't thinking during the process of recognizing a "shape"). The plane

SHALL TRANSMIT SENSATIONS to the pilot, which is forced to use them, because the

KISS doesnt help him and so he feel unsafe (preservation instinct is triggered).

During of a steady flight a Western plane doesn't transmit sensations to the pilot (he can

sleep?!). Is not the case of Russian planes!

They, deliberately, it use a "poor" system fly by wire. In the same conditions (steady flight)

each of axes of the degrees of freedom moves inside of a circular shape (forming a cone).

Even if the result of these movements is a steady flight, at a certain amplitudes they physically

transmit to the pilot a state of discomfort (uncertainty), which he subconsciously perceives it,

and which involving the preservation instinct (maintains the pilot in a permanent state of

alert). Important to note is that for any of the directions of the axes of the degrees of freedom

at a time, the systems works in an ideally shape, perfectly synchronized.

When there appears a special situation, then the reflexes reactions corresponding of the

pilot (default most effective) appear long before the conscious reactions.

However, they didn't have the necessary amplitude to perform some specific commands.

But suffice to be adding at one of the variants which are random scanned by the plane.

Inside of the cone it manifests a positive feedback, tendency towards disequilibrium of the

plane.

The variation corresponding of the parameters of special situation" increases also, relative

to the plane motion (due to reflex), which motion it has her as reference, inside of the cone.

So the "special situation" and the reflex reaction of the pilot + the proper movement of the

plane occur simultaneously at the conscious level of the pilot. And he is much more

effectively than any other mechanism.

This entire context is interpreted in the conscious of the pilot (which it manifests later thanthe reflex mechanisms) as the plane had taken the right decision only by himself.

As if being alive!

And that only during the special situations! Only then he feels a special psychological

comfort.

I saw on youtube that a Russian test pilot stroked his plane...

And so the missiles are avoidable ... In volleys or not...

Avoidable thru some imperfectionsof the technology (a "poor" system fly by wire)...

My reproach for the West is that now it manifests at this pathological stage: it is 100% sure

that is right (as it won the "cold war"). And that is an attitude that stops them to see something

other than what they already expect to see (the Russians are some disabled people that

consuming some money and intellectual energy just to find a more sophisticated way to

suicide in the case of a war).

Risti sa te faci de ras. Vezi ati tudinea lui John Pham la ineptii le tale. Mestere ia

comentar ii le mele anterioare si studiazale. Am expl icat acolo ca ati tudinea Rusiei este

deli berata: aparent face lucrur i proaste. I ar cei care se dezvolta pe directia dezvotar ii

tehnologice nu obosesc sa le dea de exemplu. Pentru a obtine bani i investitori lor lor. Dar

este foarte clar ca in directia imbinari i fi ziologice a personalu lu i mi li tar cu sistemele

respective rusii n-au r ival . Si i n ultima vreme ati putut vedea provocari rusesti facute cuavioanele lor " proaste" . Ti -am demonstrat la un nivel accesibi l si copii lor ca ei folosesc


19/22

" imperf ectiunil e" sistemului fl y by wir e pentru a da posibi li tatea realizari i unor evolu tii

imposibi le in al te conditi i . Nici macar pi loti i nu cunosc ca sistemele rusesti f ly by wir e merg

" prost" (nu controleaza total evolu tia avionul ui ). Si asta tocmai pentru ca nesigur anta

impl icata da posibi li tatea unei conexiuni speciale intr e sistemul reflex al pilotulu i si

evolu tia necontrolata de fl y by wir e a avionului (ambele in fini t mai efi ciente si mai r apideatunci cand se refera la o " tin ta" data).

Asta mai impli ca faptul ca dispoziti vele ce compun avioni ca functioneaza SIM ULTAN

(stri ct independent, fara comanda) in i nter iorul conul ui de care vorbeam anteri or.

I ntr adevar, pilotii ne rusi, percep intr -o prima faza (dupa cliseele occidentale), o

comportare total defectuoasa a avionulu i . Ai ci este pacaleala: pil otii rusi sunt for tati sa-si

invinga discomfortu l si sa-si l ase subconstientu l sa pil oteze avionul. Va garantez ca in tr -un

razboi r eal veti vedea evoluti i de neinchipui t din par tea proastelor avioane rusesti .

Nu in telegeti ca este vorba despre o bari era psihologica de care nu aveti cunostinta pentr u

ca n-ati studiat fenomenul, asa cum au f acut rusii . Prin ochelar ii vostr i i de cal vedeti n iste

avioane proaste care insa pot zbur a fenomenal .

De ce cumpara Rusia tehnologie din Vest? Pentr u ca vor s-o foloseasca in felu l lor. O vor

in toarce impotri va celor ce au creat-o.

Cred ca Sergey Bogdan a facut ce a facut la Paris fara voia superior i lor .

You risk embarrassing yourself. View the John Pham's attitude to your nonsense.

Dude, take my earlier comments and study them carefully.

I explained there that Russia's attitude is deliberate: apparently they do bad things in military.

And those that are developing their systems in the direction of technological complexity donot cease to give that as example. Thats only to get their investors' money. But it's clear that

in the direction of combining the physiological manifestations of the military personnel with

their systems, Russians have no rival. And lately you could see some challenges of Russian

made with their "bad" planes.

I've shown lately, at a level accessible even to children, as they use the "imperfections" of fly

by wire system to enable the occurrence of some impossible evolutions in other conditions.

Even the pilots don't know that Russian systems fly by wire go "bad" (partial control of the

plane evolution) deliberately. And that just because uncertainty involved the enabling of a

special connection between the pilot reflex system and the uncontrolled fly by wire evolution

of plane (both infinitely more efficient and faster when referring to a specific "target").

This also implies that the devices that forms the avionics of the plane are operating

simultaneously (strictly independent, without command) inside of the cone made by the axes

of the degrees of freedom that I mentioned it before.

Indeed, in a first phase, the not Russian pilots perceive this as a malfunction of the plane

behavior (after the Western clichs). Here is the trick: Russian pilots are forced to overcome

their discomfort and to let their subconscious to fly the plane. I guarantee you that in a real

war you will see unimaginable evolutions of the "bad" Russian planes with their crazy pilots.

You don't understand that it is a psychological barrier about which you do not have

knowledge because you haven't studied the phenomenon, as did the Russians.Through yours horse glasses you see only some bad planes that can fly phenomenal.


20/22

Why Russia (try) to buy technology from West? It will use in his own way.

They will turn this technology against those who had created it.

I think that what Sergey Bogdan did in Paris did it in the middle of a crisis of insanity,

without the willing of his superiors.

Abot the missiles you said: Try to imagine that you are in a racecar trying to dodge an

incoming missile. You shouldn't try to drive slow to dodge that missile! You try to drive as

fast as possible in order to use that momentum to make the turn when the missile arrives -

l ike the drivers must speeds before make the turn?!

Looking from a physically (INERTIALLY) point of vue that (sorry) is shit (go back to

school bro!).

Therefore the slower and imprevisible moving (of the boxer who try avoids the blow) may

permit a change of direction in a shorter distance.

By the name you should remember what happened to F 4 by Mig 21 in Vietnam?!

Wake up guys! No more taking advantage on the stupidity of your investors. You will die

without a chance...

Am dovada! Spuneam ca la Su 35 sistemul f ly by wire functioneaza in mod deli berat prost

(in tre anumi te limite el n-are ca obiect controlul evolu tiei avionului - vezi postari le

anterioare). Cineva a observat ca avionul , chiar daca are pozitia corespunzatoare (quasi

verticala) se ridi ca inexpli cabi l de incet. Asta arata ca la decolare el n -are viteza (impli cit

impulsul ) corespunzatoare evoluti ei respective. Cum impulsul (inerti a) l ipsesc este

evidenti ata puterea enorma a motoarelor , care ea singura ri dica avionul. Asta a fost si

in tenti a pilotului . Problema este ca, in aceste conditi i , avionul a fost fortat sa decoleze

fara ca viteza atinsa sa permi ta avioni cii puterea de sustentatie necesara. Cum?I n secunda 21 se observa ca, inainte ca avionu l sa atinga viteza corespunzatoare,

ampenajul ori zontal are o zbatere rapida, aproape imperceptibi la. Dar , atenti e, prima

miscare este in jos, total nenaturala pentru un avion care decoleaza. Asa ca coada

avionulu i este for tata sa se r idi ce apropii nd avionul de sol, cu care intr a in interactiune.

Impulsul dat de sol este folosit la r idicarea botulu i ca sicum avionul ar sari pur si simplu in

sus. Chiar si pentru un nespecial ist este evident ca aceasta evolu tie (spre instabil i tate) a

supr afetelor de comanda si compor tarea avionu lui ca atare, este ceea ce un sistem fly by

wire este proiectat sa impiedice.

I have the proof! I already said that the Su 35 fly by wire system works deliberately "bad"

(within certain limits he didn't have the goal to control the evolution of the plane - see my

previous posts). Someone noticed that the plane, even if it has the proper attitude (quasi

vertical) it rises inexplicably very slowly. This shows that he didn't have the take-off speed

(by default, the necessary impulse) corresponding to this evolution. How the inertial force is

missing is evidenced that only the enormous power of the engine it raises the plane. That was

the intention of the pilot. In these circumstances the problem is that the plane was forced to

take off without the speed which to allow of the avionics to reach the required sustentation

power. How?

In the 21 second it is observed that, before the plane reaches the proper speed, the horizontaltail quickly struggles, with big amplitude.


21/22

But attention, the first move is down, totally unnatural for a plane which taking off. So the

tail is forced to rise, approaching the muzzle of plane to the ground, with which comes into

interaction. The impulse given by the ground is used to help plane to raise the muzzle (in the

same time with the up movement of horizontal tail), like the plane would jump up, without

forces of sustentation.

Even for a layman it is clear that this evolution and behavior (to create instability,

oscillations) of the control surfaces and of the plane as such is, in fact, what a fly by wire

system is designed to prevent.

As I just said this is the "bad" Russian fly by wire system!

Baiete, minti de stingi. Esti platit sa faci propaganda intr -un domeniu i n care i-ai convins

pe patroni i tai (nu prea destepti) ca te pri cepi. Ti -am vazut activitatea pe youtube care, nu

numai ca n-are legatura cu presupusul tau domeniu de expertiza dar f izic iti ocupa prea

mult timp ca sa-ti mai faci si meseria. Cand ti se demonstreaza cat de prost esti raspunzi pe

langa subiect. Par tea tr ista este ca oameni ca tine i i conving pe dobitocii cu bani din

America sa investeasca in lucrur i care vor prabusii tara din interi or (ceea ce s-a in tamplat

in todeauna cu mari le structur i sociale care pentr u putere, au pierdut legatur a cu

reali tatea). Deocamdata situatia pe care o descri este reala. Dar asta doar di n cauza mitei

voastre si a fi lozofiei " avioane bune (si scumpe) pentru piloti prosti" . I n urmatorii cativa

ani cu greu veti mai putea vinde ceva in domeniul mi l itar . Oamenii vor descoperii ca

sistemele rusesti sunt mai iefti ne dar inf in it mai bune daca sunt uti l izate de un personal cu

cali tati morale si biologice mai bune. Reali tatea este sincronizare (geometr ie?! ). Uita-te

in tr -o ogli nda: toate procesele tale biologice sunt sincronizate, nu se datoreaza unele altor a

decat daca sunt anal izate individual . De aceea natura exista pri n ea insasi. Si in afaranoastra si in noi . Si, mai ales, dupa propri il e legi. Cine ignora acest fapt este un idiot care

se lupta cu el insusi. Daca castiga moare. Daca pierde moare. Un om normal cauta sa

inteleaga natura sau, daca nu poate, cel putin n-o impiedica sa se manifeste. Face echipa

cu ea. Va fi de neinvins. Puterea (dezechi li bru) genereaza automat reactia reali tatii .

Sunteti n iste ratati: ati aparut pr intr -o criza interioara (in secolu l 17) veti dispare tot prin tr -

o criza in ter ioara. Incercam sa va stimu lez instinctul de conservare (biologic) relati v la ceea

ce va pregatesc rusii . Este imposibil ! Probabil pentr u ca formal sunteti mor ti deja.

Condoleante sincere!

Boy, you lying all the time. Surely you are paid to make propaganda in an area in which you

succeed to convince your patrons (not too smart) that you're good. I saw your work on

youtube which not only has nothing to do with your alleged area of expertise but physically

that must take too much time to can do, in the meantime, your so called job. When proves

how stupid you are your answers becomes off-topic.

The sad part is that the people like you can succeed to convince the American morons with

money to invest in things that will collapse your country from the inside (which always

happened with the great social power structures, which have lost the touch with reality).

For now the situation you describe is quasi real. But that's only because of your bribe and of

the philosophy "good planes (meaning only much more expensive) for stupid pilots".


22/22

In the next few years you scarcely will sell your military systems. The people will discover

that the Russian systems are cheap (not because the Russians can't do some expensive things)

but because of an entire phylosophy: those cheap systems are infinitely better if it will be use

by the humans with better moral and biological qualities.

The reality is timing (geometry?!). Look in to a mirror: ALL of your biological processes are

sincronized (into a single image), not occurring one from another unless they are individually

analyzed. Therefore the nature exists by her self. And, above all, it exists by their own laws,

outside of us and, simultaneously, in us. Who ignore this fact is an idiot who struggle with

himself.

If he loses, dies.

If he wins, dies. Like the cancer....

A normal person seeks to understand the nature or, if not, at least not prevent her to

manifests. It teams up with her. It will be unbeatable.

Power (imbalance) automatically generates reactions of the reality (in our case, of the

humans - pilots - with better moral and biological qualities).

You are not the first losers in history: you came through an inner crisis (17th century) you

will disappear alike, by an internal crisis.

I was trying to stimulate your instinct of preservation (biological) relative to what the

Russians it prepares for you (and for the world).

It's impossible! Probably that is because, formally, you are "winners" (already dead?!).

Sincere condolences!

comentarii despre evoluția avionului su 35 (youtube)

Documents