Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[justLOT787]

If you are not able to do the right autopsies you should not do any airplane crash investigation. As we all know this was not just an accident but an execution on the head of a country and what better way then a plane crash in Russia on a Russian build plane. Once more why doesn't Russia hand over planes wrack and black boxes to Poland. The truth is slowly coming out to the world on what the Russians did.

[Peter_K]

18 scientists from the Warsaw University, representing Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer and Mechanical Engineering Departments, called for "examining the mechanics of the Smolensk crash applying solid scientific methods". The scientists wrote in their declaration that in the Polish investigation "obvious procedures were not followed, the results of kinetic examinations and lab experiments were not presented." They stressed that "the results of independent scientific examinations were not addressed, but conclusions were presented that had no basis in facts, counting on naiveté and lack of knowledge of citizens". They appealed to other scientists to join them.

I didn't know that Warsaw University had a Mechanical Engineering Department. Are you sure?

[Northwester]

I didn't know that Warsaw University had a Mechanical Engineering Department. Are you sure?

Translation issue. (Wydział Matematyki, Informatyki i Mechaniki)

[Northwester]

During the hearing at the European Parliament the results of Dr. Szuladzinski's investigation were presented. According to him there were 2 explosions, one at the left wing and one at the fuselage.

[Peter_K]

From one of the scans:

The landing in a woody area, no matter how unfortunate and at what angle, was incapable of causing the documented fragmentation of the structure

I wonder if the good Doctor had a chance to examine the 1987 "landing" of LOTs' IL-62 in the Kabaty forest just outside of Warsaw.

[Northwester]

Dr. Szuladzinski's credentials.

[Evan]

Dr. Szuladzinski's hat:

[Gabriel]

It looks to me that:

This is not a public hearing, but more a long press conference or maybe a workshop. I mean, there is no official body interrogating witnesses under oath. In fact, there is no official body inviting or participating in the "hearing". It's more like a party gathering (party in the sense of a political party, not a fest)

It is not done before the European Parliament. They just rented a room in the European Parliament (probably with the intention of confusing by saying "public hearing in the European Parliament"), but for the sake of the act they could have done in any auditorium in any hotel or even in a meeting room.

It is clearly skewed, as only one side of the coin is presented.

It's more a emotional thing that a scientific search for truth, since some of the expositors can hardly produce any evidence or testimony linked with the accident (like relatives of victims).

[Northwester]

From one of the scans:


I wonder if the good Doctor had a chance to examine the 1987 "landing" of LOTs' IL-62 in the Kabaty forest just outside of Warsaw.

Please don't compare these two. In the Kabaty forest the plane after two explosions in the air (engine and cargo hold) and fire in the cargo, slammed the ground nose down speeding 300 mph with 32 tons of fuel in the tanks and exploded.

[Gabriel]

Please don't compare these two. In the Kabaty forest the plane after two explosions in the air (engine and cargo hold) and fire in the cargo, slammed the ground nose down speeding 300 mph with 32 tons of fuel in the tanks and exploded.

I wonder if the Doctor had a chance to compare with this one:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19880612-0

(third time I mention this accident in this thread)

The closest I can think is this:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19880612-0

An MD-80 descended below minimums during a non-precision approach.
They hit the top of an eucalyptus forest.
The eucalyptus is not a hard tree, and even less the top.
Yet, the plane rolled inverted (it is believed that some slat segments on one wing got damaged and/or dettached, generating an uncontrollable asymmetric condition) and crashed. Everybody died due to the impact forces and in case that that was not wnough the plane also was engulfed in flames.
You might also want to see the photos in the link.
Similar enough?

[Gabriel]

Why the hell can't I stay off this thread?

[Northwester]

It looks to me that:

This is not a public hearing, but more a long press conference or maybe a workshop. I mean, there is no official body interrogating witnesses under oath. In fact, there is no official body inviting or participating in the "hearing". It's more like a party gathering (party in the sense of a political party, not a fest)

It is not done before the European Parliament. They just rented a room in the European Parliament (probably with the intention of confusing by saying "public hearing in the European Parliament"), but for the sake of the act they could have done in any auditorium in any hotel or even in a meeting room.

It is clearly skewed, as only one side of the coin is presented.

It's more a emotional thing that a scientific search for truth, since some of the expositors can hardly produce any evidence or testimony linked with the accident (like relatives of victims).

If this is what you think, I suggest you go to the European Parliament (or any other parliament for that sake) and try to rent a room requesting of course full servicing including interpreters etc.

The relatives of the victims are witnesses that participated, even if in the limited scope, in the proceedings and could testify about the elements of the investigation. They afterall disproved the validity of the Russian autopsy reports.

[Northwester]

I wonder if the Doctor had a chance to compare with this one:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19880612-0

(third time I mention this accident in this thread)

Except in the case of Tu-154 two powerful shocks were registered right before the crash.

[Evan]

If this is what you think, I suggest you go to the European Parliament (or any other parliament for that sake) and try to rent a room requesting of course full servicing including interpreters etc.

Lying with the truth

There is a phenomenon called the “halo effect” which is well known to psychologists and advertising executives. This is where some thing, person or event is associated in the minds of observers with some other thing, person or event and the perception is influenced by the qualities and authority (whether real or perceived) of the reference. In layman's terms it's called "reflected glory". It's what motivates people to have pictures on their office walls of them shaking hands with famous or influential people, and is also part of the philosophy behind celebrity endorsement of products.

The halo effect can be used to deceive, and one way that it is used constantly by pseudoscientists and quacks is to rent meeting rooms and then use the name of the venue or institution in promotion or post-event reporting to suggest that whatever was said was somehow endorsed by the owner of the venue. Universities are very open to this sort of abuse and I am sure we have all seen things like "It was announced at Harvard yesterday ..." followed by a report of something that was said at some event which was related to the university only because of the location. I went to a recording of a television show about a psychic once and for some reason it was recorded in one of the lecture theatres at Westmead Hospital. Mercifully, nobody made any announcements about how psychic powers had been demonstrated at Sydney University's medical school, but perhaps nobody thought of it.

...

Another example of this deceit dropped into my mailbox recently under the heading "Dr. Andrew Wakefield speaks at Parliament on Autism". You will remember Dr Wakefield as the author of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 which suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, a paper which led directly to reduced vaccination rates and the deaths of children. The paper has since been retracted by the journal and Dr Wakefield's ability to practise medicine has been withdrawn. These actions followed revelations of Wakefield's unethical behaviour, extreme conflicts of interest and deliberate stretching of research conclusions beyond what was in the data.

As I couldn't imagine why any parliament of any respectable country would want to have anything to do with a discredited and deregistered ex-doctor, and as in most places the only outsiders who get to address houses of parliament are foreign heads of state, I immediately assumed that I was being lied to. Actually, as the email had come from someone who would lie to his grandmother about the day of the week if that could cast doubts on vaccines I probably didn't have to check any further. I noticed, of course, that the announcement said "at Parliament", not "to Parliament", but I am certain that the nuance will be missed by true believers. The implication is there, and that is all that is needed when the badness of vaccines is being discussed.

And did ex-Dr Wakefield speak "at" a parliament? Well, yes, in a rented meeting room at the European Parliament HQ in Brussels.

Did he speak "to" parliament? No, although some members might have gone along because they had nothing better to do.

[Northwester]

It looks to me that:

This is not a public hearing, but more a long press conference or maybe a workshop. I mean, there is no official body interrogating witnesses under oath. In fact, there is no official body inviting or participating in the "hearing". It's more like a party gathering (party in the sense of a political party, not a fest)

It is not done before the European Parliament. They just rented a room in the European Parliament (probably with the intention of confusing by saying "public hearing in the European Parliament"), but for the sake of the act they could have done in any auditorium in any hotel or even in a meeting room.

It is clearly skewed, as only one side of the coin is presented.

It's more a emotional thing that a scientific search for truth, since some of the expositors can hardly produce any evidence or testimony linked with the accident (like relatives of victims).

Here are 2 pics from the hearing.