Patterico's Pontifications

5/2/2005

Kaus on the Satellite Claim

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,International — Patterico @ 7:13 am



Mickey Kaus is suspicious of that Pentagon claim that a satellite recording supports the U.S. version of the shooting involving Giuliana Sgrena:

CBS cited “sources” at the Pentagon, an institution with an intense interest in making Sgrena look wrong. Suspicion may be justified.

But, Mickey, the report is backed by the good name of CBS News!

Mickey also notes the Italian claim that cloud cover would have made it impossible for a satellite to record the event.

Nevertheless, Mickey argues that the L.A. Times placed itself in a very awkward position by deleting the reference to the satellite from two Reuters stories:

But simply excising the paragraph seems an iffy strategy for the Times to take in a story so widely broadcast. Now the paper has to either a) leave its readers uninformed about the satellite angle or b) make a big deal of the satellite story by reinvestigating it and printing the result. That’s a similar bind to the one the Washington Post got into when it refused to print Paula Jones’ initial charge of sexual harrassment by Bill Clinton–by doing so the paper effectively committed itself to finding out if the charges were true (with disastrous results for Clinton). … Isn’t it better just to say “CBS, citing Pentagon officials, reports X, ” and rely on the readers’ knowledge that not everything CBS or the Pentagon says is bankable? Even better, do it Bloggystyle: Violate the Fake MSM Air of Omniscience and simply say “CBS says this but we’re not sure.” …

(Characteristic Kaus emphasis in original.)

Kaus and I both await the L.A. Times‘s response:

P.S.: Let’s see how the Times responds to Patterico’s pestering. Maybe they’ll get huffy and defensive! …

You never know . . .

P.S. Meanwhile, a reader writes to say:

The satellite angle is bogus, I believe, because that sort of rapid-fire multiple exposures in darkness is not characteristic of the capabilities of space platforms — and they ARE exactly what airborne platforms do routinely and efficiently. Space stuff is usually used for wide-area scanning for missile launches, or close-in investigation of surface features in airspace that is otherwise denied to US vehicles. Why waste an expensive space asset when JSTARS or a drone could do it better for one ten thousandth the cost?

I have no idea whether this is correct or not — what do I look like? a journalist? — but I throw it open to you, the readers, for discussion and dissection.

16 Responses to “Kaus on the Satellite Claim”

  1. My bet is on a UAV, either a Predator or a Globalhawk, which to my understanding are both equipped with thermal video cameras that would not be hampered in any way by cloud cover and are quite capable of streaming video. UAVs such as these are know to be used on Route Irish.

    That said, I’m pretty sure that neither Mickey Kaus nor the Italian government is not privy to the depth of our intelligence-gathering capability so I’d kindy ask them to quit acting like they do.

    Confederate Yankee (ff28cd)

  2. Am I missing something? Is the criticism of the satellite story that it wasn’t a satellite but an airplane that tracked the speed?

    Justene (10ab41)

  3. Patterico,

    Thought you could use an icon–it would help with the bookmarks.

    Here is one: pp.ico if you can use it.

    Paul Deignan (f649ac)

  4. Patterico, this one looks like we have intelligence we can’t use because it would reveal the source. While I am never going to credit anything the Pentagon says that backs up any questionable claim it may have made, it seems unlikely that a tracking of the Italians’ vehicle would have been made out of thinnest air.

    Besides, an escape of this variety would hardly be made at funereal speed, would it?

    Ruth (02e74d)

  5. It’s possible that CBS interpreted some phrase like “an overhead asset” to mean “an imaging satellite.” This seems an unlikely source–both in terms of being overhead at the right time, and having its cameras directed to take sequential images of that particular patch–without a priori knowledge that it would be of importance.

    More likely is the JSTARS E-8C airborne radar system:

    The radar and computer subsystems on the E-8C can gather and display detailed battlefield information on ground forces… [The system] can develop a 120-degree field of view covering nearly 19,305 square miles.

    It might make sense to have this plane routinely loiter over Iraq and record ground activity, for later use in analyzing insurgent behavior. If one was in the air that night, it would be a question of later reviewing the archived data, zeroing in on the place and time of the shooting, and identifying the behavior of blip representing the Italian car at the roadblock.

    This is speculation. Air Force fact sheet here.

    AMac (b6037f)

  6. Isn’t this E-8C plane one of the ones that the 9/11 conspriracy buffs say ran into the south WTC tower (note the “pod”) instead of a commerical plane ?
    These things must really get around.

    Neo (7136ee)

  7. Most people think of “satellite imagery” as being similar to ordinary photographs. That doesn’t necessarily have to be. There are several ways of amplifying data, for instance, and a wide spectrum that can be used to gather data, including radar and infrared. As others have said, there’s also “theater assets” – i.e., JSTARS, several drone programs, the TR-1 (excellent side-looking radar system), and probably a few that have been developed since I retired. There are also several hundred ground sensors that can be deployed over the area. It’s hard to know how the data was collected, because explaining how would reveal “sources and methods” that are best left in the “black”. I’m sure the government has the information they say they do, but I’d make no claim to accuracy about how they got it.

    Old Patriot (9e500c)

  8. I agree will all of the comments that suggest this may well have been some type of “overhead asset” other than a satellite. Let’s face it, reporters have been demonstrating amzing levels of ignorance of military affairs for some time, so who’d expect them to understand the difference?

    For my money, I’d bet on a UAV since they’re in wide use in Iraq, and are the type of thing that might well be tasked with route security on a route as important as this one.

    Great Posts all around.

    Ralph Tacoma (3729ec)

  9. And leave us not forget, folks, that the whole reason everyone was edgy and on the alert along Route Irish that night was the imminent arrival of Ambassador Negroponte.

    Which makes it even more likely we would have had airborne surveillance of the route, looking for suspicions persons who might be emplanting IEDs, or for vehicles that could be car bombs, and so forth. I suspect Route Irish was being much more heavily surveilled than usual that night.

    Also, in terms who who propagated the “satellite” meme, it’s also entirely possible that the PR officer who spoke to the reporter did not himself have full knowlege of where the overhead imagery came from (and probably had not personally seen it), so might have leapt to the conclusion that it was from a satellite, not from a UAV or manned aerial surveillance.

    It might not be the reporter who was at fault here. Can’t say for sure.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  10. “In terms who who?” Yeesh! My brain went on hiatus at the beginning of that sentence.

    Mentally change that whole mishmash of four words to “regarding who,” please.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  11. The “overhead asset” could very well have been an aerostat, which is akin to a blimp. Lockheed Martin was given a contract last year to provide 2 aerostats as sensor platforms in Baghdad. According to this link, the aerostats were deployed in June and ~August 2004.

    Jimbo (5f4d0e)

  12. This is all settled now.

    Italy has concluded the investigation.

    reelcobra (ac7508)

  13. The satellite story makes no sense, even after one realizes that it has to be something like a UAV, not a camera in orbit.

    The first hard question is why is there no mention of such data in the Vangjel report?

    The second hard question is how did the car manage to stop in about 81 meters (that figure is derived from the Vangjel report)? At 60 mph, expected stopping distance would be more like 95 meters, assuming the driver reacted quickly (that figure is derived from here). And the 95 meter figure is arguably on the low side, given that this small car was heavily loaded (three adults).

    To the extent that one argues the car was going fast (e.g., 60 mph instead of 50), it tends to prove that the driver hit the brakes as soon as the spotlight was turned on (given the distance measurements reported by Vangjel).

    I have a feeling the source for the satellite story is the same “senior US military official” who said “the investigation … will ultimately prove the officer’s car was traveling in excess of 100 mph.”

    By the way, while there’s an absence of evidence that the shooting was deliberate, there’s an abundance of evidence in the Vangjel report that the US was highly negligent. Most of this evidence was supposed to be redacted.

    jukeboxgrad (80fdf5)

  14. I think CBS totally made this story up. I don’t think the LA Times should have to answer why they don’t publish things which seem false, and have no sources.

    Some men see things as they are and say why. We dream things that never were and say why not report these things as fact. — CBS Mission Statement

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  15. Be very careful here. You don’t know what capabilties the military has as far as space assets are concerned. A space-based radar can produce exactly the kinds of information that are quoted by the U. S. military in this situation. I don’t know, and you don’t know what we have up there, and the Pentagon ain’t about to tell us either!

    Mescalero (a5e9bc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0823 secs.