It has elapse some time since time …of the accident, of varied statements suggesting an assassination, and of coming into being the above article.Site ‟Katyń 2” When there is a nothing being worth of describing, a nothing widening the previous public knowing, then Iʼll write nothing a new because it isnʼt worth becoming involved in excerpts put into circulation of a like evidences from the investigation of cause the accident near Смоленск if these information arenʼt consistent.

In my above article written opossite to the known publication I have unsharply present some thesis, intentionaly not emphasizing it, not distinguishing with position in the whole article. (If may could check who one of reading ones had understand the thesis at once readed …But it isnʼt could to do with help of digital machines. Itʼs could may to know thanks to people responses …not recognizable by machines.) I presented some dependence resulted from the working of TAWS. Of course I could use other object to base the dependence on it, but just this one in the highest degree makes it easier because of so‐called concreteness or existence of specification of its activity. Itʼs known that machines work wrong, and especially going the more standardized, but thanks to just this standardization itʼs could to know how primitive a machine has behave and nobody dares to deny because this has tested. :-) For this reason it was the easiest for me to base on TAWS for presenting some dependence no matter of any protecting effectiveness of this system on a counted for it final effect of events (avoiding the catastrophe).

Namely I formulated thesis, of very context of situation that has been in the airplane a pilot had have to make the decision to escape however reports on the accident given publicly result in that he hasnʼt carry it out. This thesis is in the above article presented in shape of suggestion that the pilot hasnʼt could make the decision to escape. On the other hand the understanding of sense of dependences being described in the above article tells clearly not only about he has to such a decision make, but also about accessible publicly information on the accident are internally contradictory in the way of bilinear oppositely switchable and it isnʼt possible to solve this contradictory without withdrawing earlier ‚evidence’ from the catastrophe. Just for this reason there was performed so many moves of accurate time of happened events but that, removing the dependence presented by me is still with aid of these operations impossible.

How does appear a sketch of the switching of this dependence which none of two opposite double positions could be called mutually consistent? TAWS informs about necessity to raise the ceiling of airplane, using voice order “pull up” (pulp? ;-> ) which points out to the pilot some one of ways of escaping — escaping over an obstacle. This is a backward order, or just the pilot receives an order understood as order from a machine instead heself had giving orders, complex commands of navigation. If this order was usually ignored by pilots while landing up on airports, then so was happening because visual information confirmed with instruments were prefered. If there hadnʼt been such information then a pilot because of self‐preservation instinct wouldnʼt check what is there where to not see while a simple information points out that there is collision and death. To behave otherwise, there wouldnʼt suffice any order of authority which decides about the career, instead there would has to become something of the sort taking over command of the airplane. And a pilot hasnʼt can resist to voice command of TAWS to raise the ceiling for his reason of more reliable information, because he hasnʼt have such ones. He has could consiously ignore this order till altitude which on he was feeling secure yet. However every information of attention has would pull out him of the ignoring of escape order. So the pilot hasnʼt resist to the machine if he hasnʼt be seeing the ground, or else he has resist if he has be seeing it. In the first case he hasnʼt would carry the order of machine but his own consistent with the plan, in the second case he has would do just simple lift as TAWS was telling to, without escape to side. However in publicly showed excerpts of evidences from the accident there is contained that the visibility hasnʼt give a possibility of seeing the ground and as well the pilot has carry the order of machine while in such a situation he has would perform the escape to side.

That means all publicly accessible evidences are internally contradictory because all of them base on the given dependences and the time moves cannot change anything yet. In particular recently published the transcription of conversations in cockpit however would be detailed is useless completely if there is no information about taking over the airplane, as well the transcription could be fabricated like a fragment of detective story for reading. The contradiction described in the previous paragraph is impossible to solve without denying evidences still published.

On the other hand if to reject any flight‐recording evidences and to leave the only ones which were seen after the accident also short before, then itʼs could to see rather strange effective arrival of the airplane enabling it to hide in the gorge and next to go in the side of subsidiary facilities of the airport and finally unfortunate airplane crash with the worst possible method. I wonʼt suggest in this article separate hypotheses which can spin up.