Why « Russian Pravda » obscures details of Malaysian Boeing crush?

Why « Russian Pravda » obscures details of Malaysian Boeing crush?

dr Marek Głogoczowski

It is the Part One of a larger dissertation « The civilization induced impoverishment of sensory stimulation and its conssequences »

  hommage à Jean Piaget and his collaborators at School of Genetic Epistemology in Geneva in years 1976-1982

1. An example of a scientific satire from Russia Today :

At the website „Foxtrotalpha” in English iwas published a pertinent critic of a « sensational » discovery, in USA, in middle of last October, of a satellite photo of an « Ukrainian jet » apparently firing a missile at Malaysian Boeing on July 17 . Its author, Tyler Rogoway  (“a defense journalist and photographer”) wrote in it: This image, which appeared on the Russian TV Station ’1TV News’ website supposedly shows a Ukrainian SU-27 firing (they mistakenly call it a MiG-29) on MH17 as it flies over eastern Ukraine. The image is totally bogus and is an embarrassment to Russia’s quasi-state run media.

 Nevertheless this “bogus gift” from USA, was endorsed by the vice-president of the Association of Russian Engineers Ivan Andrejevskij, and later on by the director of Russia1 TV program “Однако” (‘However’) Michail Leontiev, and in particular by Jevgenij Schultz who claimed himself to be a “information war” warrior. He has published at “rusvesna” (‘Russian spring’) website, a very aggressive text on this topic. In its  Резюме (Summary) Schultz wrote: “Не утверждая, что снимок подлинный, я утверждаю, что доказательства фейковости, которые сейчас тиражируютсяэто просто вранье (‘I am not arguing that the photo is original, but I do claim that proofs of its falsity, which are given at present – are simply lies’.) According to Schultz, one of these lies consists of a calculation, done by a high school pupil, who used the Thales theorem to calculate the height of a “satellite” above the shadowy airplane on a picture above. This student put as a = 11,3 m (the spread of airplane wings), as b = 850 m (the length of a stretch of a forest covered by these wings), as c = 6000 m (the presumed height of a plane above the ground). And from the Thales proportion he got the h (the distance of satellite from the plane): h = a x c / (b – a) = 81 meters. It is a simple problem usually worked on in upper classes of a grammar school.

The “information war” warrior Schultz loudly this calculus a lie, for “Sputnik makes photographs using an aggrandizing optics. And inside it paths of rays are very different. … I am not going to make calculations – a stupid man will not understand it anyway, while for bright men it is clear; with these stubborn ones I can do nothing – but it is evident that optical tools are made for a kind of close-up of a given object.” Such “full of divine authority” explanation looks promising. But “Schultz” (it is the “combat name” of Александр Евсин) tacitly assumes that this “optical close-up” is limited only to the silhouette of an airplane on the picture above, while it is valid in all field covered by the photograph: the landscape under the plane is “closed-up” too, in exactly the same degree. It means that the student, which calculated the distance of only 81 meters between “Su-27 plane” and the “American satellite” was trivially right. At the end of his “analytical” article Schultz reinforced his “information warrior” anti Thales assertion “In all cases you shall not believe these, which at present are lying that this photo is bogus (MG – see Tyler Rogoway above). There is no single proof that it is a forgery!”  In my professional life I’ve worked – not only in Poland, but also in Denmark and in Switzerland – as an academic teacher in the domain of physics and geophysics. And it is for the first time I see such CHUTZPAH of an ORDINARY CROOK as this “Schultz”, who is trying to make idiots from all readers of his “information warrior” bull.

In all evidence he was, in some cases, successful in his CHUTZPAH, published at “Rusvesna” on 15.11.2014 – 15:29: four days later, on 19.11.2014 – 13:33 Schultz’s arguments repeated à la lettre Michail Leontiev, the director of “Однако” (‘However’) TV Russia 1 “analytical” program. And of course, at “rusvesna” (“Russian spring’) website there were multiple ironic commentaries to this “manifestation of intelligence*” of a prominent member of  Russian New Bourgeois Establishment: “У него 2 жопынижняя и верхняяКак у червя дождевого. It means “He (Leontiev) has 2 arses – the lower one and the upper one – like in a rain-worm”; similar comments followed Schultz’s scientific analysis: “Have you seen photos of aircrafts done from a sputnik? They are comparable in size with objects on the ground. … Such big area  is possible to cover only by photographing it from a satellite, and only by the method of making several photos. And moreover, this day (July 17) was clouded”.

In all evidence “Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Russian Media” to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet. All this means that New Bourgeois Russia is indeed in a very sorry state having, at the top of its (DEZ)INFORMATION SYSTEM, intellectual arses not competent enough to judge the veracity of the Tales theorem.


* The word “intelligence” is derived from Latin ‘inter-ligare’ – to bind-in-between, associate, similar phenomena; the word “intellectual”, albeit very similar, is derived from Latin ‘inter-legere’, and has more narrow meaning of ‘reading/discerning-in-between’, objects, texts, etc. Of interest is that etymologists usually are not discerning the difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘intellect’. This subject will be developed in Part Two, for it belongs to a larger problem of a lack of clear distinction between living (re-active) and non living (non re-active) objects.

2. Examples of similar “scientific satires” from  Poland Today.

The problem that most trivial, fully concordant with laws of physics facts, are vigorously denied by prominent INTELLECTUALS, is not limited to Russia Today. In Poland since already 4 years we have a very influential politician, a true “information war warrior”, the sworn anticommunist and anti-Russian, former Minister of Internal Affairs Antoni Maciarewicz. “He, being a member of the Sejm, has created a parliamentary committee to disprove results of investigation into the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and to convince the public that the crash was, in fact, an assassination. In 2011 this committee published “White Book of Smolensk Tragedy”, where some 170,000 documents were published (…) pointing to Polish and Russian causes of the crash. His findings were ridiculed by experts in the field.”

The “information war” achievements of Maciarewicz are widely known among his opponents: by inventing really ridiculous hypotheses, he systematically tries to obscure what happen near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. (Among these Maciarewicz’s “team” arguments was a “scientific suggestion” that the left wing of Tu-154 was broken at its edge, precisely 4 seconds prior to the crush, by an explosion of a bomb hidden inside this wing – and not by a collision with a thick birch tree; this well marked on a tree collision happen during the 34 years old pilot’s attempt to land, in a dense fog, using solely “made in USA” GPS and TAWS instruments: he scaled out his pressure altimeter, this in order to not be annoyed by its warning signals.)

The sociological research in Poland indicates that roughly 1/3 of adults in my country believe that presidential Tu-154, with 5 top rank Polish generals on its board,  crushed near Smolensk as a result of the Polish-Russian (PM Tusk  & Putin) conspiracy. Is it possible that in Russia a similar situation will be (is?) the social reality, concerning the Malaysian Boeing crush,  too? (I am not writing about the majority of media consumers in EU, for there media take it as self-evident that Russians are responsible for Malaysian Boeing crush.)

I’ve read on this topic a lengthy article of Victor Galienko at the official (?) Russian Federation website “regnum.ru” on November 17. Galienko writes, pretending that his reasoning is errorless „For me it remains, as before, only one question. Why each new information about Malaysian Boeing obligatorily contains dezinformation? Beginning with this “plane loaded with cadavers” and ending with this last (supposedly) original photograph? Isn’t in order to gradually distance us from the essence of this event?

 Ups, apparently feeble in his intellectus – it means ability to discrern between objects – Galienko not distinguished between events not only very distant in time, but also very different in their factual confirmation: the story about “bloodless, usually naked, cadavers” (see the photo above) was brought to media by the local militia commander Igor Strielkov only few hours after the crush. This “bizarre” – even for Strielkov – news, was confirmed the next day by publication, worldwide by “Time Magazine”, of horrible photographs made by known French photographer Jerome Sessini, who was working as a war correspondent near by, by data gathered by a medical team, which arrived from  Donieck only 20 minutes after the crush, by a film produced by Victor Ostrovsky and also by several other films. On a page of “politicus.ru”  from July 18, we find an early supposition that in steppes of Donbas were found human rests from another Malaysian Boeing777, which disappeared on March 8 this year. Also the reminder that “one of Russian politicians in a TV program was predicting that this (lost) liner will be used in a provocation against Russia”:

In case of the discussed above “troika” (Schultz, Leontiev, Maciarewicz) all these journalists-politicians were making strenuous efforts “not too see” trivial facts, which put in question their preferred versions of events. They are not isolated. Just at the very moment I completed these remarks on November 26 evening, at the website km.ru I discovered the lasting 1hr 20min  Russian film titled “How Boeing was killed”, produced by a consortium “Pravda.ru” (‘Pravda’ means “truth”), and directed by Andrei Karaulov.

To my not-so-astonishment, despite the length of this film there was NO SINGLE WORD in it, that:

a)     Corpses found in Donbas were “not fresh” and partly rotten (on this film are shown only numerous black plastic bags filled with something).

b)    Jet engines found in Donbas were roughly two times smaller than engines of Boeing 777.

c)     Remnants of a plane, which was found in Donbas were, prior to their fall, cut somewhere into relatively small pieces.

( Other important inconsistencies are enumerated at “CRIMINAL FORGERIES OF NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM”)

Despite efforts of Karaulov, who purposefully avoided  in his film to show these “smelling” cadavers, a observant viewer can find that his “sterilized” film in fact confirms reports of “bloodless corpses” falling from the sky: at 17’ 37’’ at this film is shown a hole in a roof of a village house, through which one of Boeing’s passengers has fallen into a decrepit room. His unnaturally looking body was photographed already on July 17 by Jerome Sessini and published worldwide by Time Magazine. Looking at it in July I became indeed convinced that “the staged Sessini images implicates the global Zionist cabal …” (http://nodisinfo.com/sessini/).  But the simple comparison of the fractured wall just above the window visible at Sessini’s photograph, with the same place shown in Karaulov’s film, provides a very solid proof that through the roof had fallen something resembling naked, heavily decomposed human body:


3. Does the “democratically elected” government of USA consists of MICROCEPHALIANS?

This film of Karaulov, at which are quoted opinions of several popular Russian authorities, make me sensitive to the fact that not only Ukraine and “the West”, but also the “official Russia”, is interested in obscuring important facts concerning this air catastrophe of July 17 (this day was the 96 anniversary of execution of tsarist family – which coincidence is not without importance). Such behavior “we don’t want to see” is nothing new in life of “elites” of today. According to the official USA.gov version, on  September 11 2001 we had, masterminded by Islamists hidden somewhere in Afghanistan, the mass killing of about 3000 Americans in New York and Washington D.C. This fatal day 3 Boeings loaded with passengers, hit targets in form of WTC skyscrapers and Pentagon building. The official explication of this “attack on America” was soon denounced, as a monstrous forgery, having as a goal “the global war on Islam”. It exists an abundant literature on this topics. Here I will recall only two simple facts indicating that the OFFICIAL AMERICAN version consists of physically impossible explications:

1/ On September 11 THREE WTC TOWERS (no 1, 2 and 7) collapsed, while they were hit by TWO PLANES only.

2/ Towers 1 and 2 fell down in 9 to 11 seconds – it means in a time comparable to the time of freely falling stone from the height of 400 meters. This fact excludes the OFFICIAL EXPLICATION that these 400 meters high towers collapsed due to the fatigue, of their steel pillars, softened by fire. (As observed it Chief WTC electrical design engineer Richard HumennI totally discounted the original pancake theory, because if the connections to the columns from the floor trusses to the columns were broken, those columns would have been left standing