Upload
gabriel-pascu
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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=yVlmoNtcyhY8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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/1184327531729572514338/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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!
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
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/1184327531729572514338/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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/1184327531729572514338/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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/1012040306003093971358/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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/1184327531729572514338/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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:
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
12/22
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101441518818790303440http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101441518818790303440https://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/1014415188187903034408/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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.
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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.
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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.
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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".
8/10/2019 Comentarii despre evoluia avionului Su 35 (YouTube)
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!