I think I sent a message on this to pen-l but not to lbo (trying to avoid going overquota today). And I certainly don't like going up against the geniueses at STRATFOR, but there is an explanation for this.
The newly created in 1996 agency, the National Imaging and Mapping Agency (NIMA) that has seized power/control/responsibility for this business from CIA made a new map from satellite imagery. The new map showed the embassy. However, that map had no street addresses or other IDs on it. For that the database from the old map was used. So, they had a map that showed the building, and from above it looks like the building that was to be the target, but they did not know what it was.
BTW, there is reason to believe that a more complicated shell game is going on in Washington with respect to the blame game. NIMA is the new kid on the spook block and a Pentagon agency. There has long been competition between the Pentagon spook shops and the non-Pentagon ones, notably the CIA. I find it interesting that the CIA is being given the entire blame for this, although it is pretty clear that the NIMA played a pretty important role in the whole business.
BTW, for those who come up with half-baked probability calculations and then declare that this could not have been a mistake, I would remind you that the chances of the Three Mile Island accident happening were supposedly something like one-in-ten billion. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Adam Souzis <adam at souzis.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 3:19 AM Subject: Stratfor: NATO’s Old CIA Map Theory makes no Sense Whatsoever
>Just noticed this on their web site:
>http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/commentary/c9905100200.htm?section=3
>
>NATO’s Old CIA Map Theory makes no Sense Whatsoever
>0200 GMT, 990510
>
>The most recent NATO explanation of why the Chinese Embassy was bombed was
>that the CIA provided outdated maps of Belgrade, showing the old location
>of the Embassy before it moved to its new site four years ago. NATO is also
>claiming categorically that there was no pilot error and that the mission
>was carried out as planned. This is beginning to make no sense whatever.
>According to old maps of Belgrade and numerous sources inside and outside
>Yugoslavia, four years ago the current site of the Chinese Embassy was a
>vacant lot in a residential area. The only major structure nearby at the
>time was the Hotel Jugoslavia. Since then an office building has been
>constructed nearby.
>
>Now the NATO statement that there was no pilot error and the admission that
>an old map was being used are completely incompatible. If we are to believe
>both these claims, then we must assume that the target was a vacant lot.
>That is possible, assuming there was a bunker there. However, NATO has
>leaked to the New York Times that the strike was delivered by B-2 bombers
>using laser guided missiles. That means that someone had to fix a laser
>beam on the target. They would probably have noticed that the empty lot now
>had a large building on it.
>
>This is really getting ridiculous. Pilots using laser guided munitions are
>probably provided with detailed photographs of the building to be struck
>along with instructions of the optimal point of impact if they are doing
>the lasing. If another platform is doing the lasing, they are given
>instructions on the angle of attack. The pilots had to have pictures of the
>building, taken by satellite, reconnaissance aircraft or other intelligence
>means. In each case, be assured that longitude and latitude as well as
>other appropriate location designators are provided.
>
>The old map theory is preposterous. It assumes first that the target was an
>empty lot and second that NATO is flying air strikes based on maps alone.
>What is truly puzzling is that these explanations are so utterly
>unbelievable that they are clearly intended to be seen through. Since we
>can’t believe that the Chinese Embassy was attacked deliberately (it just
>makes no sense whatever) and since the accident couldn’t have occurred the
>way NATO spin-doctors are describing, we are at a growing loss to
>understand the situation. We can understand how the accident happened much
>better than we can understand the increasingly bizarre explanations. As we
>move further from the event and more information becomes available,
>everything makes less sense.
>
>NATO has said it would give out no further information. Given what it has
>handed out so far, we think silence is an outstanding idea.
>
>