Message posted by RoadKill on August 27, 2009 at 17:08:07 PST:

obviously, or maybe not so obvious, is the "groom b-2" part of the subject.

It's correct in the sense that the B-2 wasn't flying over Rachel NV for any reason other than to line up for a pass through the radars at Groom. Thus, it's a Groom B-2.

It's false in the sense that the B-2 actually is based at Groom. Only two places fly the B-2 - Whiteman and Edwards.

However, one should not have to be a lawyer and carefully construct their pharases to ensure there is no ambiguity, no matter how far-fetched the alternate meanings might be. No slams intended, and I'm pleased to see some very meaningful info come across the posts.

RoadKill

In Reply to: Re: Groom B-2 over Rachel posted by Robert on August 27, 2009 at 15:47:11 PST:

Replies: