Site ‟Katyń 2”

About the translation

Translated. Just donʼt propose me to do it again. ;-) Despite I still am willing to improve this translated text.

After all Iʼm here where I was. There is no change of my thinking if youʼd suppose I think English language now. That hasnʼt change because youʼd read the translation by me. (Iʼm not writing the source language name as lawyers do safely. ;-) ) The translation is taken out from a dictionary containing approximately fourty thousands entries which every one word of the text was verified on to make sure its meaning is adequate, many of them were verified in reverse translation part of the dictionary too. All for the goal to translate my writing style the best possible with the dictionary and my English grammar knowledge and feeling. Then below you can touch an untouchable what a language style is. There is a little part of it, grasped under English common language. My language style, yet I expect from a partner in conversation to have a language style, they donʼt use one usually. Like an interlocutorʼd be going to submit to my style because he hasnʼt make use of an own or has follow mine.

Every word location has a meaning why itʼs there, this is not like which kind itʼs to be there. A lawyer when he needs to call something has no name, is creating the name in form of the noun. Me when I want to point out something is understood more or less, am using the context of words which ones carry information about a subject. In English there isnʼt a lot what could be done using the context because the language syntax rules require to put a word into the place by reason of the word type group or youʼd miss the synonymous dictionary meaning of word. With Esperanto there were put forward the sentence rules and the word rules. In my language the sentence rules allow to move words without breaking the syntax and the word rules require to make interword relations by word modification, and of course you also have the prefix‐suffix rules for a word and for word sequence, English has the last too. Nobody has to make use of full set of rules and can stay with what and why is spoken publicly in the time, but I do being often not understood because they donʼt want but can. This is how you use your language in your life with remembering what you experience but the only what you feel. This is how you save your life in language memory.

Below there is the article I wrote in my language trying hard to bound text under a deductive logic. Cause of it the article is translatable at all to English with leaving out some details of word meaning, and the language style (and “every little shrub and succulent” ;-) ) remaining. Iʼm not trying to overrule any native English speaker translation, itʼs a clue on the source to translate and itʼs the article content if the only. This introduction chapter was created in English.


«https://sites.google.com/site/katynii/» in «web.archive.org»Words repeated with whisper, murmured, concealed on, mouths to mouth by people. There is that written, there thanks to the Internet to able to read up, able to know what not allowed, what forbidden and is hidden off. We know …what they wonʼt say wanting to hide the true. We know and we guess.

Since if it that is written would be the true, then there is no more to understanding yet. So people can think, maybe think in majority when theyʼre giving the page address, but might so it hasnʼt be on the intention. On the mentioned page there is some composition of information on the accident, accessible from various information media on the Internet. And just this collection is valuable, simultaneously with passage of time itʼs losing its up‐to‐date worth. On the other hand interpretations …go in direction to a kind of theories about UFO, that on the net are dying out, for this reason as a fantasy (I like) to read it pleasantly. But between the composition of information and the interpretations there is on the page something very valuable, something the most difficult — remarks. Maybe these are not given directly as the interpretations, however for attentive recipients theyʼre noticeable and indispensable.

Just for the remarks that there are on the page I recommend it and on the same time am entirely disavowing the interpretations given there directly. Simply the author has make efforts to gather information on the accident from the Internet, and during this work remarks were appearing that he was to write off casually yet to aim the interpretations which in my opinion itʼs needed to ignore for can have self look.

Simultaneously itʼs due to remember that a page of such kind, put on servers of such kind, or in an environment of information community having a definite peculiar character — similarly pages of kind Wikipedia — bases on information written off in contrast with all information existent. In such a community nobody can say anything if it hasnʼt written off, because heʼll be pushed away from speaking quickly. This is an encyclopaedic property (of Wikipedia) without the conscientiousness of non‐volatile printed sources, a journalistic property (of Google) without the conscientiousness of printed the press. However the true would be somewhere, in such a community the known true is limited additionaly with borders of an earlier publication on the Internet web. Itʼs very valuable property because there exists a concreteness of statement yet, justness …in relation to typical chaotic articles on the Internet but… with barriers arenʼt permiting to go down the public road. Withfrom such the attitude the recipient of text has freedom to see a public statement having an impression of his crossing the road, being slower but wider than author of article. And fromthere itʼs felt a collision neutrality of points of view because ways the only crossed, but everyone is going different one, not only considering the direction, but just considering the sort of way: the author traveller, the recipient settler.

And the first remark is that the Polish airplane which has the accident was not only one which had problems during landing approach, how much information about the second, concrete airplane are true. However this observation — no matter of the truth about concrete second airplane — makes able the recipient to see a situation on area of the accident more freely. Not only Poles are these victims, not only we have attacked nationally by it isnʼt known whom. Although the Polish airplane may was an object of some attempt it wouldnʼt be the only object because there were appearing some definite conditions of environment where the plane has found it causing an accident. It could be so, hasnʼt to, but its observation reveals the covered.

The other unwritten remark is a notice that the Polish airplane — although was flying over rising terrain — didnʼt try to turn the side avoiding crash without a need of rising over rising terrain. It isnʼt known how long distance the visibility gave a possibility of seeing by sight a too low altitude, but it has to be a sufficient time for the machine response for rising it from the trajectory of landing descent, or for changing the landing trajectory into escape trajectory. So pilots had must see by sight the terrain early to have a possibility of beginning to rise the machine. However they havenʼt done a duck turning the side (how the media inform with saved talk of pilots: wanting to turn left) from an unknown reason, the manoeuvre if successful maybe would save the lives.

It isnʼt known if itʼs so easy to fool airplane devices placing transmitters of driving signal whereas original transmitters havenʼt be turned off. Moreover the localization puzzles of so‐called ‛the tree of tearing away part of airplane wing’ that has result in directing the Polish airplane straight into a location of airplanes held on the airport. Maybe the change of flying direction wasnʼt result of the tree but was too late a control manoeuvre? Maybe the strike of turned airplane into ground instead of glide landing of fuselage between trees was caused just by this manoeuvre that initiated turn around the axis? There are too many circumstances in the accident that suggest wrong decisions of pilot on an extremity: at first the obstinate rising over rising terrain and later beating out the unsteering airplane from axis of symmetry.

Personally once I had such an incident when driving fast from above by the road encountered a group of persons standing opposite site, from among whom there has ran some dog and standed middle of the road. When I immediately corrected safe driving path into precise right half of the road the dog ran again on this half purposely. Nor tried to run in direction to me, nor run away, only stared on me, almost on purpose to want to commit suicide. Of course I had could run the dogy over because itʼs not human, but just by reason of that itʼs seen he wanted and as a dog he cannot decide about what I have to do, then immediately I thought over a proceeding plan. Because I couldnʼt be in time to stop. A split second before crash with the dog when it couldnʼt react yet running far, Iʼve do quick little unique motion of wheel I never trained but yet a long time ago I used it at that time for keep control over the vehicle… and Iʼve pass by partialy verge. The dog with no shiver just turned around the head staring disappointed on me when I for a moment turned the head to check if survived.

But what is the result of it? That I had a plan and I knew this road, I knew what to expect next, then I knew how I can drive after dog to not fly out of the road and to not fall on opposite side. Such decisions are taken in short time when itʼs known from beginning there are no chances for stopping. And in the accident near Смоленск if the pilot should have chances to survive he had to have such a plan made since about two seconds from realizing a situation. While it comes into carrying out such a plan the body behaves as automatic as automatic the machine is driven if steered manually in friendly conditions. At that time itʼs too late for thinking yet. For this reason the pilot or had the plan made in few seconds, or yet that time it could be almost certain he wonʼt survive not only due to heʼd leave the machine itself, but also due to heʼd steer it poorly, destroying opportunities which could result from inert elongated fall.

There on the web page which is described is put the known filmy being called a first (anonymous) report from place of the accident where ‚everyone’ hears voices ;-) of murderers. With present abilities of alteration itʼs possible to add such sound influences into a film recorded on the place of authentic event without the least problem. Quality‐loss compression aplied by YouTube with conversion into a published shape eliminates in general any value of evidence of this film on that what it contains openly. And besides the transcription of dialogue is incorrect, fabricated. This film shows a fog, for all unbelievers, a fog what can be really, white like milk covering impenetrably. There are more thicker fogs, if people arenʼt able to experience them donʼt know. And might nobodyʼll say ‚special forces’ were waiting for the airplane on the area is accessible for all inhabitants of Смоленск, moreover knowing where the plane will fall. No, this airplane simply felt very close of the airport, shortly before the area of airplane park where the plane almost fell into, turning — how itʼs spoken generally — after the unlucky tree. Airport services didnʼt have far onto this place if they were going straight. Moreover who has record it and why has he be able to do it, to record an execution? Because wasnʼt there such a form of it which is suggested on the basis of the filmy? The audio of this film is too spatial for audible peculiar character of directional microphone of typical camera creating on my feeling an impression of recording statements over the film recorded on the place of event, at the end especially. From my searchs on the net the film was introduced there by a person belonging to Polish radical political youth.

Placed later on the web page which is described interpretations are based on media information which the author stated hisself about theyʼre disinformation. Still to should think if the pilot had more time for doing any activities than a minimum described by me, or rather since descent to crash altitude he couldnʼt consider on anything yet with other persons. If the warning system against descending too low over terrain obstacles (TAWS) wasnʼt ignored normally by pilots during landings on those airports. If the last has really happen then absorbing an attention of pilot with rejecting suggestions of automaton on steering confirmed him subconsciously on a conviction that right conduct is an opposition to the importunate machine, what influenced directly in that which decisions was prefered by pilot, in his separation from the machine as a tool subordinate of will but limited, in treatment it as an unnecessary disturbing automaton. All of that could cause the pilot wasnʼt able for a few seconds to make the decision on complete plan of going out the extraordinary situation, becoming a victim the only possible later to do of instinctive dodges before obstacles, which would made destruction of the machine just before its free crashing fall. And with understanding the final between ten and twenty or even tens of seconds itʼs seen clearly, at that time the only chance was to make done by pilot uncommon activities but common during such circumstances: ‣ rapid one‐person working out a proceeding plan on the basis of the knowledge about terrain of surroundings, ‣ successful realization of the plan. Everything really important which made a situation bringing the accident had happen earlier, what was the cause of descent to unsuitable altitude. That was decisive about the accident, even if everyoneʼd survive thanks to exceptional activities of pilot.

So thatʼs seen, during critical situations only some one person can take an airplane out of difficult, at that time there is no time for reaching an agreement among pilots. What takes place at that time should be foreseen in advance not as a set of procedures of cooperation, but as the subordination to some one pilot, only and solely by reason of lack of time for communication. There are not many such situations, it isnʼt known when theyʼll appear, but when theyʼll appear then even there is no time for alert announcement to other pilots.

That could be an assassination but commited certainly not in this way how itʼd seemed for everyone on the basis of information collected and interpreted on the web page which is described. The decisive factor was a cause of such and no other a flight trajectory of the airplane before a pilot faced an enormous problem of going out the situation with no out.