The lamestream media told you:
“U.S. missile takes out crippled satellite”
“Hit on orbiter probably destroyed toxic-fuel tank”
“Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours,” the Pentagon said.
This front page news coverage was brought to you in an unbylined article from the Associated Press.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Obeying their government handlers, the AP defied even elementary logic and ran the headlines above, even though they flatly contradict each other. But they do make the missile launchers sound good.
Based on the quote in the third line, an accurate headline would read, “U.S. missile effect on satellite unknown,” but this is not what the press release said, would require thought on the part of the “reporters,” and would cast doubts on the military announcement, so it was avoided, following SOP.
“But the Pentagon did say those things, and we reported them accurately, so it’s not an error,” an unknown reporter was overheard saying, following SOP.
After smacking the reporter upside the head, the Uninvited Ombudsman told him what everybody already knows — the Pentagon is a building and cannot speak.
The actual results of the anti-satellite missile test were learned the next day, but didn’t improve the flawed reporting that preceded it. The Pentagon denied that the satellite shoot-down was a test of a satellite-shoot-down system, counting on the AP to report that claim, which they did.
Countries around the world though expressed doubts, but were brushed aside. “Those people complain about everything,” the Pentagon was overheard saying. Whether America owning a workable satellite-shoot-down system is a good thing was unclear.
Countless critics who asked why a re-entry at 2,700 degrees capable of destroying the Space Shuttle wouldn’t ignite and explode a single tank loaded with rocket fuel, went unanswered. “Whatsamatter you,” said one critic, “don’t you trust the government?”
A review of stories leading up to the shootdown showed an interesting progression of facts: Spy satellite not working since launch in 2006, satellite orbit erratic, satellite plunge to earth unlikely to hit anything since most of earth is water or uninhabited, satellite fuel tank may pose risk, satellite fuel does pose risk, military reluctant to attempt untested shootdown, military will attempt shootdown, military shoots down satellite with system that is not a satellite shootdown system.
Government sources later announced the destruction was successful, and released videos as confirmation. News credibility and circulation numbers continue to plummet.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
aaronam said,
1. The satellite was already in a re-entry spiral below the orbital height of other satellites.
2. The missile (SM3) was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles that just barely reach space without entering the normal orbital plane of satellites.
3. The missile was suited for the purpose - it is not capable of reaching the height where satellites normally operate.
March 14, 2008 at 3:16 pm