What's new

10 years ago usa bombed china embassy in Belgrade

Here you are assuming that the primary reason for the presence of this Chinese system and Chinese embassy involvement was to assist Yugoslav military with their air defence. However, this need not have been the case: its main reason could have simply been to test the system and to send a signal to the US.

AFAIK there only was a single system. Hardly an major contribution to the coherent air defense of an entire country (particularly if communication and command nodes are taken out). Of relevance is: out of all sorties you mentioned, how many to Belgrade, and how many of these by stealth aircraft (I doubt this system would be used against conventional aircraft), and of these how many flown by B-2 and how many by F117? You seem to be suggesting a single system in Belgrade could undo the fact that the entire air defense system was meticulously being taken apart.... which explains the low effectiveness of Yugoslav air defenses in general.
Why not? The majority of the air sorties were by 'non-stealth' aircrafts so it is only logical that if this mythical system was supposedly effective against the F-117, it should have been doubly or even triply effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts. There should be more than just one F-16, a 'non-stealth' aircraft, shot down since it is also only logical that this mythical system would have been deployed to protect high value targets, regardless of where those targets may be, Belgrade or elsewhere.
 
This is just outright idiotic for those who have relevant knowledge and experience...

echkelon: "Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case
The Pentagon gave China an ultimatum to return the F-117's cloaking system that was recovered by Yugoslavian military units from the wreckage and turned it over to the Chinese.
There is no such 'cloaking system'.

The next two images are illustrations of basic radar signals behavior upon a PLANAR surface...

92daab19029c6870cdedd714147dd03f.jpg


173281f30b41e8992fbee367e5a8ca76.jpg


If a radar signal impact a perpendicular surface, the signal will reflected back to source direction. We can dispense with atmospherice absorption (or attenuation) for now, that is a whole different topic. But if a surface is not perpendicular, no matter how slight, the signal will reflect 90deg off. If two surfaces, or even two edges, meet and form a corner, then we have a 'corner reflector' or 'target corner reflector', either terminology is appropriate.

Corner reflector are often used by water crafts such as small boats and yachts and will greatly enhance the boat's radar signature to assist coastal marine radars.

151eda5dc4116e7df2ba3eb26e9dbdba.jpg


This is for safety reasons, especially in heavy traffic areas like harbors. No electricity is involved, the object can be cheaply constructed with a wood frame wrapped in aluminum foil for conductivity. There are no shortages of sources about these objects, their functions and use.

Retroreflector: Definition from Answers.com
Corner retroreflectors occur in two varieties. In the more common form, the corner is literally the truncated corner of a cube of transparent material such as conventional optical glass. In this structure, the reflection is achieved either by total internal reflection or silvering of the outer cube surfaces. The second form uses mutually perpendicular flat mirrors bracketing an air space. These two types have similar optical properties.

Tri-Lens Radar Reflectors
Every boat needs a radar reflector. A ship's radar system will only work with boats that are visible on radar, and a radar reflector is what makes your boat visible. Radar systems typically require a minimum of 3 consecutive 'hits' or blips on a ship's radar before it can be acquired as a target. This puts a premium not only on the strength of the return, but also on consistent coverage.

On a conventional or 'non-stealth' aircraft, if the vertical stabilator is mounted straight up, where its root meet the fuselage is a 'target corner reflector' and will enhance the aircraft's electromagnetic signature. Now add in an additional vertical stab like the F-15 or several of the MIGs. But the angled vertical stabs of the F-18, F-117, F-22, F-35 and the SR-71 do not produce such corners. Continue to focus on military aircrafts for now. Other areas that can produce 'target corner reflectors' are pylons for weapons or external fuel storage.

This is how the F-117 is able to drastically reduce its Radar Cross Section (RCS) value. A look at the aircraft and it is evident that the intent is to AVOID creating perpendicular surfaces or corner reflectors as much as possible. Weapons are stored internally. Take a sheet of paper, cut a corner into it and even if only the edges of that corner is faced into the radar transmission direction, that would qualify as a 'target corner reflector'. Lockheed went to great pains to avoid them as much as possible with access panels like gear doors and cockpit canopy have sawtooth patterns to avoid creating corner reflectors when the doors/panels are closed.

The next image illustrate the differences of radar signal behavior on planar and curved surfaces...

869f5717bc384c73f86115e3da554980.jpg


When a radar signal impact a sphere or a curved surface, the wave behaved in what is called a 'creeping' motion.

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the principle of diffraction, when a wave front passes an obstruction, it spreads out into the shadowed space. A creeping wave, in electromagnetism or acoustics is the wave that is diffracted around the shadowed surface of a smooth body such as a sphere.

Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.

Vladimir **** made important contributions to the understanding and calculation of creeping waves. They are described by Airy functions.
Notice the highlighted sentence. Now the differences between the F-117 and later generation of US 'stealth' aicrafts, the B-2, F-22 and F-35, are obvious. The later generation exploited both angular deflection and the 'creeping wave' effect to reduce their RCS values without involving a lot of Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) like the F-117. For these later generation of 'stealth' airframes, only the leading edges have RAM installed.

For large surface expanse like the wings or the underside of these 'stealth' aircrafts, we have this technique...

1b0a2bfe33fa269659383cd778f1e0aa.jpg


Tapered conductivity with its many small reflections are more desirable than one large reflection. These small reflections have greater odds of being lost into background noise.

Next...

5709852de9cf28bcf1f0d74d7fd378f1.png


In theory, a truly smooth surface would be invisible to radar as long as it is angled away from perpendicular. No surface is ever completely smooth. Minor surface irregularities will create tiny corner reflectors and that is why 'stealth' aircrafts maintainers take extra care around these surfaces, especially with the F-117 where 'booties' are required over ordinary issued combat boots if anyone has to walk on the aircraft's topside.

The F-117 was designed back in the 1970s where engineers were still using sliderulers and only senior engineers have something exotic called a 'personal computer', which if it had 512mb of RAM it was considered 'powerful'. The B-2, F-22 and the F-35 curved surfaces were designed by supercomputers that calculate volcanic lava flows, tidal wave behaviors and nuclear explosions. It was a Russian, Petr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev, who came up with the basic mathematics on signal behaviors on surfaces.

Petr Ufimtsev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Much of Ufimtsev's work was translated into English, and in the 1970s American Lockheed engineers began to expand upon some of his theories to create the concept of aircraft with reduced radar signatures.[1] Northrop made extensive use of Ufimtsev's work in developing the B-2 bomber. Professor Ufimtsev currently teaches at the University of California, Irvine (UCI).
The Soviets ignored his work. The Americans exploited the equations. We retired the F-117 while no one in the world have been able to build its equivalent after all these years. Now we have moved onto the next generation of low obsevable aircrafts, in manned and unmanned aircrafts. There is no such 'cloaking system' this conspiracy nutjob is talking about. People like this loon prey upon the general public's ignorance of the esoterics of radar detection. At the highest level, this is nothing more than applying basic principles. At the lower levels, the technological advantages the US have always had made possible the creative exploitations of these basic principles. The Russians and the Chinese have no choice but to be creative about their own propaganda on how they could defeat 'stealth'.
 
Without the addition of the following, it wouldn't a whole story of "the most diplomatically costly mistake of the war "(The Independent)...

---------------

Spooky murder in Loudoun County, VA
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 8:39pm
Last month, former Army officer William Bennett was found murdered after being out with his wife on an early morning walk in a residential neighborhood in Lansdowne, Virginia. His wife Cynthia was badly injured but survived the March 22nd attack, which is being investigated by local and federal authorities.

In 1999, sources bring to our attention, Bennett was a retired Army lieutenant colonel working at the CIA on contract as a targeter during the 78-day NATO air war on Kosovo. He was one of the people, according to a former U.S. intelligence source, found responsible by the Agency for feeding the target into the system that resulted in the May 7, 1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

CIA spokesman George Little told the Loudoun Independent that Bennett left his job at the Agency in 2000.

The former U.S. intelligence source says Bennett was fired as a consequence of the CIA investigation into how the Chinese embassy was targeted.

On April 8, 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported that the CIA “has fired one employee and sanctioned six others, including a senior official, in the first official punishment of those involved in the deadly incident. …The State Department informed the Chinese Embassy in Washington on Saturday of the disciplinary actions by the CIA … The CIA declined to identify those who were disciplined for the bombing, which killed three Chinese civilians and wounded 27 others. But a U.S. official said the agent who was fired ‘was the one who selected the target . . . and essentially put the X on the map in the wrong place.’"

According to the former intelligence source, that one person fired by the CIA over the incident was Bennett.

The CIA would not confirm that. “When it comes to Bennett, the CIA has not commented on what his responsibilities were as a contractor, noting only that his service with the Agency ended in 2000,” CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told Foreign Policy Saturday.

Gimigliano would not comment on whether extra security precautions were being advised for the other CIA officials who were reported as having been sanctioned by the CIA for the incident.

The bombing of the Chinese embassy was immediately declared a terrible mistake by the U.S. government, but it caused severe diplomatic strain on U.S. relations with Beijing. The U.S. government said the bombing of the Chinese embassy was the result in part of targeting based on old maps, that did not note that the Chinese embassy had moved to nearby the targeted location, the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement.

“According to administration, defense and intelligence officials, the bombing was caused by a fundamentally flawed process for trying to locate the directorate's headquarters in the New Belgrade section of the Yugoslav capital,” the New York Times reported in 2000. “Armed with only an address, 2 Bulevar Umetnosti, the officer who was dismissed used an unclassified military map to try to pinpoint the building's location, based on a limited knowledge of addresses on a parallel street.”

“On the map, which the National Imagery and Mapping Agency produced in 1997, the building that turned out to be the embassy was not identified,” the Times report continued. “Instead, the map showed the embassy in its former location in central Belgrade. After a location was identified, the target was discussed during at least three meetings among C.I.A.officials, none of whom, evidently, questioned the identification process, the officials said. The target was then turned over to Pentagon officials, who, also without questioning it, put it on a list of targets to bomb in Belgrade.”

“It was the first and last target the C.I.A. selected during the war, Mr. Tenet testified last year,” the Times’ report said.

“China expressed strong dissatisfaction today with CIA disciplinary action taken against several employees in connection with the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and once again rejected U.S. conclusions that human error caused the attack,” the Washington Post reported days after the CIA announced the disciplinary action against the seven officers. “Beijing said it was not appeased by Saturday's announcement."

The FBI has reportedly joined the Loudon County Sheriff’s office in investigating Bennett’s murder.

Update: More recently, before retiring, the Washington Post previously reported, Bennett, 57, had done stints as a contract worker, including training troops in Iraq. Cynthia Bennett, who had been hospitalized since the attack, is the director of procurement for the architect of the U.S. Capitol.

Update II: A CIA official said Monday, "At this point, there is absolutely no indication that Mr. Bennett’s murder had anything to do with his service with the army or the CIA. Naturally, you’d want to double-check with law enforcement, as it’s their investigation."

A spokesman for the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office told Foreign Policy Monday: "All I can say at this point is, We haven't ruled out any angle. Are there indications leading us in their direction? There is no indication leading us in that direction at this point but we certainly can't rule it out. Where we are in the investigation, we can't rule anything out." He said the LCSO has 13 investigators devoted full time to the case, and is being assisted by other federal agencies, including the FBI's Washington field office. He said last he heard as of Friday, Cynthia Bennett was still hospitalized in critical condition.

UPDATE III: The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office said in an April 7 update that they have now begun to be able to communicate with Cynthia Bennett and are seeking four to five individuals: "Loudoun County Sheriff’s Investigators have begun communicating with a Lansdowne woman who was brutally attacked last month on Riverside Parkway. ... Loudoun Deputies were initially called to the area around 5:38 a.m. on Sunday, March 22, 2009, for a report of a suspicious vehicle. The complainant stated they heard a commotion outside and observed a white panel van and several subjects outside. The van was further described as having no windows on either of the rear sides of the vehicle. The van returned to the area and left the scene again before authorities were contacted. A deputy arrived on the scene and conducted a foot patrol when the discovery was made. ... The Loudoun Sheriff’s Office is currently seeking four to five individuals involved in the attack of the woman and the homicide of her husband. All of these individuals have knowledge of the attack, but have varying degrees of involvement in the activities that took place that morning. The Sheriff’s Office is making an appeal to the public to be aware of anyone who may be exhibiting changes in their behavior since the day of the attack. ..."

Spooky murder in Loudoun County, VA | The Cable
 
This is just outright idiotic for those who have relevant knowledge and experience...

echkelon: "Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case
There is no such 'cloaking system'.
No, there isn't, there are stealth techniques. Though it would not surprise me if countries like Russian, China would have tried to obtain portions of the downed F117 for study. But that was not what we were discussing. Besides, I referred to the parts about the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the alleged passive radar and communications only. I also did point out that the page I qouted was a conspiracy theory page (the implication being that at least some of the materials on it would be - shall we say - 'unconventional'.)

So, keep your hat on! Meanwhile, thanks for an informative post.
 
No, there isn't, there are stealth techniques. Though it would not surprise me if countries like Russian, China would have tried to obtain portions of the downed F117 for study.
The most the Russians would learn from the F-117's wreckage would be RAM composition. The avionics were a composite of existing aircrafts, nothing extraordinary, but given how far behind they are, any information is better than none. But even if they were to learn anything from analyzing the recovered RAM, it too would be outdated. Just for an introduction to this subject, there are three main types of RAM:

1 - Jaumann layering
2 - Dallenbach layering
3 - Analog circuit layering

Also called 'absorbers'. We are at least a decade ahead of the Russians on items 1 and 2 and they are 'passive' methods. Analog circuit is the next level of active radar signal processing and have no doubt we are working diligently on that.

But that was not what we were discussing. Besides, I referred to the parts about the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the alleged passive radar and communications only. I also did point out that the page I qouted was a conspiracy theory page (the implication being that at least some of the materials on it would be - shall we say - 'unconventional'.)

So, keep your hat on! Meanwhile, thanks for an informative post.
What I posted was just a short primer, in as much layman's language as possible, about basic radar principles on the target. So keep your hat on, I will move on to the next topic about the absurdity called 'passive radar'.
 
President Clinton: A tragic mistake and it was the result of a mix-up.

NATO claimed that they were using old maps and got the wrong address. What a BS!!!!!

The CIA claimed that the bombing was an accident, but cannot explain why so many mistakes occurred. What a BS!!!

And China rightly believed "it was a deliberate act". And the US wonders why China is strengthening its military strategically and tactically.

Just imagine what would happen if the Russian embassy was bombed?
 
Continuing debunking this idiocy...

echkelon: "Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case
WMR can report the following further details on the attack on the Chinese embassy: The Chinese radar system that was used by the Serbs to bring down the F-117 used a form of passive pulse Doppler radar that operates in the long wave television broadcast band from 50 to 88 MHz on television channels 2 through 6. It used the synchronous pulses generated by a high power television transmitter for its timing source, usually synchronized by a global positioning system (GPS). The mobile radar station is merely a receiver and a directional antenna in receive-only mode. The signals are fed into a laptop computer with a GPS receiver for timing purposes. All stealth aircraft (F-117/F-22) with a wing span between 25 and 75 feet will self resonate and "light up" when exposed to high power radar signals in the TV band.
First...It is ALL AIRCRAFTS, not just 'stealth' aircrafts, that are affected by long wavelength freqs.

Radar Cross Section
Raleigh region. If the target is a lot smaller than the wavelength of the radar system, the target is said to be in the Raleigh region. If the target is in the Raleigh region, the radar cross section of the target tends to be smaller than the target's physical size.

Resonance region. If the target is of similar dimension to that of the wavelength, the target is said to be in the resonance region. In the resonance region, the radar cross section of the target may vary a great deal but tends to be larger than the physical size of the target.

Optical region. The optical region occurs when the target is much larger than the operating wavelength of the radar. This is quite often the case with operational radar systems whose wavelengths are normally in the order of centimetres in length. When operating in this region, the radar cross section of the target is similar to its physical size.
Second...Long wavelengths have poor target resolutions regarding target velocity, range and aspect angle. Why else do tracking and targeting radars uses the much higher ghz bands? So the reality is that there is nothing revelational about long wavelengths in this piece of nonsense.

Radar detection require two distinct operations: Transmit and Receive. To transmit is to be active, to receive is to be passive and much like the vocal chord and the ears, both operations work together to create a conversation. There is no such animal called a 'passive radar'.

Most people perceive radar detection to consist of a constantly rotating dish or half-dish. For radar detection that uses only one antenna to perform both transmit and receive operations, there must be a period of when the antenna stop transmitting briefly to receive, just in case, any echo or return, from a target. The results are pulses of energy, not a constant stream, of transmission. Basically, if the antenna does not shut up, it will not be able to hear anything. This configuration is called 'mono-static', meaning one mechanical device perform both transmit and receive operations.

If there is one antenna to transmit and one antenna to receive, then the configuration is called 'bi-static'. In this configuration, the passive receiving antenna must be sufficiently distanced from the transmitter lest it be overpowered and unable to receive any target echo, if any. A mono-static radar is restricted to being a pulsed system but because the bi-static radar has a physically distinct transmitter, a bi-static radar can either transmit pulses or in what is called 'continuous wave' mode.

Monostatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monostatic radar is the term given to a radar in which the transmitter and receiver are collocated. This is the conventional configuration for a radar, but the term is used to distinguish it from a bistatic radar or multistatic radar.
Bistatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bistatic radar is the name given to a radar system which comprises a transmitter and receiver which are separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. Conversely, a radar in which the transmitter and receiver are collocated is called a monostatic radar.
Take note of this comment about a bi-static configuration: transmitter and receiver which are separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. In other words, for best reception of target echo, if the target is expected to be at 10,000 meters altitude, the ground separation between transmitter and receiver antenna should be the same figure. This is called the 'bi-static triangle' and anything less than equidistant of the legs and target ambiguity increases. Ambiguous, not undetectable.

So now there is one problem for a bi-static configuration...Aircrafts do not stay at a constant altitude so how would it be possible to move the antennas to have accurate target altitude and speed when there is ambiguity about the target in the first place? This is assuming that a single operator is in control of both antennas. But for this absurd conspiracy theory about using television signals to detect US 'stealth' aircrafts over Yugoslavia, this problem is compounded when the question is 'Are those television transmitters under the control of the radar operator?' The answer is obviously no. So even if this laptop computer does exist...
The signals are fed into a laptop computer with a GPS receiver for timing purposes.
How is it able to calculate what the receiver antenna detect when the bi-static triangle is unknown because the target's altitude is unknown and the target's altitude is unknown because it is difficult to detect in the first place?

The American 'Silent Sentry' system uses considerably more computing power than a laptop to exploit signals from television, radio and even cellular transmissions to detect airborne targets. The system uses multiple receiver stations in constant communication with each other to compensate for uncertain bi-static triangle equations. In a system where there are multiple transmitters and receivers, it is called 'multi-static' but the relationship between one receiver to a transmitter to the target remain a bi-static relationship and must be resolved. Not only that, this is a multi-transmitter-receiver matrix so there has to be multiples of transmitter-receiver-target resolutions -- PER TARGET.

What if there are multiple hostile targets? Even just for one target, different receivers in different locations will have different Doppler shifts for the same target. All of these different Doppler signals must be reconciled and that process is called, obviously enough, 'differential Doppler resolution' in radarspeak. Now add in multiple targets moving at several hundreds km/h dispensing smaller targets called 'bombs' and transmitting ECM signals. What if these are 'non-stealth' attack aircrafts saturating the electronic spectrum to hide 'stealth' aircrafts on their way to destroy even more important targets?

Another problem for the believers of this loony conspiracy theory is that they apparently have not learn much from the US attacks on Iraq where major electrical stations were either destroyed or severely damaged. No electricity no television or radio transmissions and even if they have back-ups they would be targeted as if they were ordinary military radars. If they shut off out of fear of SEAD missiles, then what good are all the receivers and their super-duper laptops?

From a technical and logical perspective, this conspiracy theory, like %99.999 of conspiracy theories out there, it make no sense. Is there any wonder why not one major avionics company in the world accept this absurdity? Did the oh-so-mighty-and-scary CIA intimidated and paid off all of them?
 
Fine with me ;-)

Still, even if you throuw PCL out the window, that still leaves the possibility that the facility (PRC Embassy Belgrade) was targeted because its communications center was sending burst transmissions to Yugoslav army units in Kosovo from the Yugoslav military high command in Belgrade. Especially if every thing else was 'down', it could be important to cut that line as well.

Stranger things have happened in war and it would not be something that would be admitted openly.
 
君子报仇,十年不晚,出来混迟早要还的。。。。

你是个真人君子,说的太好了:cheers:。我看时间过的差不多了,已经十年了。中国加油!!:china:
 
Last edited:
Continuing debunking this idiocy...

echkelon: "Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case
First...It is ALL AIRCRAFTS, not just 'stealth' aircrafts, that are affected by long wavelength freqs.

Radar Cross Section
Second...Long wavelengths have poor target resolutions regarding target velocity, range and aspect angle. Why else do tracking and targeting radars uses the much higher ghz bands? So the reality is that there is nothing revelational about long wavelengths in this piece of nonsense.

Radar detection require two distinct operations: Transmit and Receive. To transmit is to be active, to receive is to be passive and much like the vocal chord and the ears, both operations work together to create a conversation. There is no such animal called a 'passive radar'.

Most people perceive radar detection to consist of a constantly rotating dish or half-dish. For radar detection that uses only one antenna to perform both transmit and receive operations, there must be a period of when the antenna stop transmitting briefly to receive, just in case, any echo or return, from a target. The results are pulses of energy, not a constant stream, of transmission. Basically, if the antenna does not shut up, it will not be able to hear anything. This configuration is called 'mono-static', meaning one mechanical device perform both transmit and receive operations.

If there is one antenna to transmit and one antenna to receive, then the configuration is called 'bi-static'. In this configuration, the passive receiving antenna must be sufficiently distanced from the transmitter lest it be overpowered and unable to receive any target echo, if any. A mono-static radar is restricted to being a pulsed system but because the bi-static radar has a physically distinct transmitter, a bi-static radar can either transmit pulses or in what is called 'continuous wave' mode.

Monostatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bistatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take note of this comment about a bi-static configuration: transmitter and receiver which are separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. In other words, for best reception of target echo, if the target is expected to be at 10,000 meters altitude, the ground separation between transmitter and receiver antenna should be the same figure. This is called the 'bi-static triangle' and anything less than equidistant of the legs and target ambiguity increases. Ambiguous, not undetectable.

So now there is one problem for a bi-static configuration...Aircrafts do not stay at a constant altitude so how would it be possible to move the antennas to have accurate target altitude and speed when there is ambiguity about the target in the first place? This is assuming that a single operator is in control of both antennas. But for this absurd conspiracy theory about using television signals to detect US 'stealth' aircrafts over Yugoslavia, this problem is compounded when the question is 'Are those television transmitters under the control of the radar operator?' The answer is obviously no. So even if this laptop computer does exist...How is it able to calculate what the receiver antenna detect when the bi-static triangle is unknown because the target's altitude is unknown and the target's altitude is unknown because it is difficult to detect in the first place?

The American 'Silent Sentry' system uses considerably more computing power than a laptop to exploit signals from television, radio and even cellular transmissions to detect airborne targets. The system uses multiple receiver stations in constant communication with each other to compensate for uncertain bi-static triangle equations. In a system where there are multiple transmitters and receivers, it is called 'multi-static' but the relationship between one receiver to a transmitter to the target remain a bi-static relationship and must be resolved. Not only that, this is a multi-transmitter-receiver matrix so there has to be multiples of transmitter-receiver-target resolutions -- PER TARGET.

What if there are multiple hostile targets? Even just for one target, different receivers in different locations will have different Doppler shifts for the same target. All of these different Doppler signals must be reconciled and that process is called, obviously enough, 'differential Doppler resolution' in radarspeak. Now add in multiple targets moving at several hundreds km/h dispensing smaller targets called 'bombs' and transmitting ECM signals. What if these are 'non-stealth' attack aircrafts saturating the electronic spectrum to hide 'stealth' aircrafts on their way to destroy even more important targets?

Another problem for the believers of this loony conspiracy theory is that they apparently have not learn much from the US attacks on Iraq where major electrical stations were either destroyed or severely damaged. No electricity no television or radio transmissions and even if they have back-ups they would be targeted as if they were ordinary military radars. If they shut off out of fear of SEAD missiles, then what good are all the receivers and their super-duper laptops?

From a technical and logical perspective, this conspiracy theory, like %99.999 of conspiracy theories out there, it make no sense. Is there any wonder why not one major avionics company in the world accept this absurdity? Did the oh-so-mighty-and-scary CIA intimidated and paid off all of them?


save your time,my friend,you just bombed our embassy in Belgrade.to be honest,we dont care what you guys said about it,face it,ok?we all know why,right?God knows what your goverment thought then or did.we will remmember that for sure:china:
 
save your time,my friend,you just bombed our embassy in Belgrade.to be honest,we dont care what you guys said about it,face it,ok?we all know why,right?God knows what your goverment thought then or did.we will remmember that for sure:china:
Intention always have an effect on moral outrage and what happened was from our incompetency, not from any malice. After that accidental bombing, Clinton telephoned Zemin but Zemin refused to accept the call. The US President had to send the official apology through Ambassador James Sasser. Clinton signed the condolence book at the Chinese embassy in Washington. An embassy, as long as the property is occuppied by representatives of a country, it is considered sovereign territory so this allowance is a total contradiction to Zemin's initial refusal to accept Clinton's apology call, indicating that China's top leadership KNEW that this was a true accident, nothing more, but that the opportunity to humiliate a great power was too good to pass up.

The night after the bombing, SecState Madeleine Albright personally apologized to Ambassador Li Zhaoming. The US reconfigured air traffic over Belgrade to allow China to retrieve the remains. Ambassador Sasser asked permission to attend to the aircraft when it landed but the Chinese government refused, another act of opportunistic humiliation to the US. We proposed to send a Presidential delegation, meaning a group that represent the President himself, to Beijing but the Chinese government told US to wait. US embassy in Beijing and consulates in other Chinese cities flew US flags at half staff.

If the bombing was truly from malice, it would not have taken US much efforts to cook up some evidences, no matter how dubious, to support the bombing. So if you are going to 'remember' this in a negative tone, let US know if you are going to conveniently forget how we fought for China in WW II. That way we can start a new relationship with China with a clean slate that may or may not be so amicable.
 
Intention always have an effect on moral outrage and what happened was from our incompetency, not from any malice. After that accidental bombing, Clinton telephoned Zemin but Zemin refused to accept the call. The US President had to send the official apology through Ambassador James Sasser. Clinton signed the condolence book at the Chinese embassy in Washington. An embassy, as long as the property is occuppied by representatives of a country, it is considered sovereign territory so this allowance is a total contradiction to Zemin's initial refusal to accept Clinton's apology call, indicating that China's top leadership KNEW that this was a true accident, nothing more, but that the opportunity to humiliate a great power was too good to pass up.

The night after the bombing, SecState Madeleine Albright personally apologized to Ambassador Li Zhaoming. The US reconfigured air traffic over Belgrade to allow China to retrieve the remains. Ambassador Sasser asked permission to attend to the aircraft when it landed but the Chinese government refused, another act of opportunistic humiliation to the US. We proposed to send a Presidential delegation, meaning a group that represent the President himself, to Beijing but the Chinese government told US to wait. US embassy in Beijing and consulates in other Chinese cities flew US flags at half staff.

If the bombing was truly from malice, it would not have taken US much efforts to cook up some evidences, no matter how dubious, to support the bombing. So if you are going to 'remember' this in a negative tone, let US know if you are going to conveniently forget how we fought for China in WW II. That way we can start a new relationship with China with a clean slate that may or may not be so amicable.



come on .man ,we chinese all remmembered that u helped us lot in WW2 and we r grateful for that ,and we know if there is no you guys and we would have more people died in that disaster.i am sure a lot of chinese remmember that,and have a good feeling about the US,right?trust me ,if you helped us we will remmber forever.


but for the so called "accident"in 1999,you believe what your goverment said ,we dont.maybe this "accident"not a wish of Clinton,why dont you think more?why there is no one has "accident "with Russia,trust me ,this kind of "accident" is too dangerous to happen .and we know that how difficult it is to accept is as an real accident.

Ambassador Sasser asked permission to attend to the aircraft when it landed but the Chinese government refused, another act of opportunistic humiliation to the US. ---------as you said,-----another act of opportunistic humiliation --------we think that your accident is an act of opportunistic humiliation .
we will remmber all ,good or bad,not for hate but lesson,we didnt have power to make our people safe at that time ,but we will let that not happen again,you and i all know that we dont need a war and we dont need to make the earth destroyed,we could face it together ,but we will have troubles a lot someday,it is a important to make sure some of your goverment not send such a message to tell us shout up,it's unwise ,right?
even our goverment can not be trusted in such kind of "accident" by people,how about your a saying from your goverment to make us believed,it's really difficult,isn't it?
making sure such 'accident' never happen is good for you and us ,it's beyond common sense.and maybe we will have the power to have a strong reaction someday,so be careful we all.:china:
 
come on .man ,we chinese all remmembered that u helped us lot in WW2 and we r grateful for that ,and we know if there is no you guys and we would have more people died in that disaster.i am sure a lot of chinese remmember that,and have a good feeling about the US,right?trust me ,if you helped us we will remmber forever.


but for the so called "accident"in 1999,you believe what your goverment said ,we dont.maybe this "accident"not a wish of Clinton,why dont you think more?why there is no one has "accident "with Russia,trust me ,this kind of "accident" is too dangerous to happen .and we know that how difficult it is to accept is as an real accident.

Ambassador Sasser asked permission to attend to the aircraft when it landed but the Chinese government refused, another act of opportunistic humiliation to the US. ---------as you said,-----another act of opportunistic humiliation --------we think that your accident is an act of opportunistic humiliation .
we will remmber all ,good or bad,not for hate but lesson,we didnt have power to make our people safe at that time ,but we will let that not happen again,you and i all know that we dont need a war and we dont need to make the earth destroyed,we could face it together ,but we will have troubles a lot someday,it is a important to make sure some of your goverment not send such a message to tell us shout up,it's unwise ,right?
even our goverment can not be trusted in such kind of "accident" by people,how about your a saying from your goverment to make us believed,it's really difficult,isn't it?
making sure such 'accident' never happen is good for you and us ,it's beyond common sense.and maybe we will have the power to have a strong reaction someday,so be careful we all.:china:
Then it really is useless to present any arguments at all. You already made up your mind. As long as you have this mindset where the all-powerful CIA is everywhere, you have a convenient scapegoat for everything wrong in the world, let alone China. I feel sorry for you.
 
Then it really is useless to present any arguments at all. You already made up your mind. As long as you have this mindset where the all-powerful CIA is everywhere, you have a convenient scapegoat for everything wrong in the world, let alone China. I feel sorry for you.

now let me tell you one thing to make you clear what i am saying
we have some disputed island with Vietnam,right?and we had a fight with them in1988,right.but you know how the top leader think?dont fire,but when this order got by our troops ,it's over,and we had a vedio now about this,but who fried first?who knows,we just see after one shout we fired ......but for sure you know we said they fired first,they said we did,but who knew the truth?maybe died ,maybe he would never talk about it,maybe god know,but you can not ask him about it
same logic with your 'accident',no one really know how it happened,and dont tell me that your mans had one mind about anything,dont forget we r chinese,and there is a China.
just like who killed Lincoln,Kennedy and Martin Luther King,maybe you will get the killer,but who is boss,God know=======

if there is a really a wrong action killed 3 or4you guys in a such an accident by PLA ,will you trust it's ture by what we say?even your goverment accept it as an accident but how many Americans will trust it?
i dont say CIA is everywhere 'accident'happened ,but you have to realize that ,your troops r made of different Americans,some of them maybe like us or not ,they could make 'mistakes' to do sth.if you find a cover you r safe
let's have a guess,if it's someone's personal actiong with bad wish,what Cliton would do .and you ?
if i was Cliton,i would surly say it's an accident ,why gave China a change to bash USA?why?accident is a perfect choice for Clinton.


we r talking about politics no football game or NBA,ok ?man ,you and i not so naive ,right?:china:
 
Back
Top Bottom