Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet. You
have a better theory?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
You
have a better theory?

There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

No, I have no theory to propose, but the one that was put forth was a
non-starter. Why, is there something inherently wrong with debunking an
obviously incorrect theory? This was not a personal attack--it just pointed
out that the theory was unworkable.

Brooks

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

It some cases the "theory" is so far from reasonable as to require it.

If you must have a "better" guess try go with this one: the planes no
longer belong to the Air Force but to a scrapper and the markings
that proclaimed them as such had to be defaced and some bubba
determined the quickest & easiest way to do so was by stabbing
some bit of a big machine through the markings.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:



To show compliance with some treaty?


[...] umm, probably not


I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.


You


have a better theory?



There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks




Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.

In article , Mark and Kim Smith
wrote:

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.

--
Bob Noel

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:17:36 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Mark and Kim Smith
wrote:

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Parted out and melted down? The buyer wouldn't care.

Remember this is what they wanted to do to our old flying war birds.
I'd guess it basically means "This is marked for the scrap heap" and
has been rendered inoperable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.