Nonhocapito - you are right on the money :
Here, at (1min50secs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO04-Id9qeE
Swedish woman reporter asks Swedish prime Minister Carl Bildt this question :
-" Do you know why SAS has painted over their logos?..."
And Carl Bildt replies:
-" Well I guess it's SAS who has done that - if I well understand - for reasons that ...uh... SAS will have to judge (assess)."(i.e., Carl Bildt is basically saying that it is for SAS to explain why they have painted over their logos ...in other words he's saying: "Ask SAS - I have not the faintest clue!" ).
I think I'll call SAS tomorrow and ask them why they painted over their logos in all haste. There were, after all, no casualties and the emergency-landing was considered a great performance by the SAS pilots. Next, I will call Dduck and ask him - since he was an eyewitness at the site - how he possibly missed seeing the painters at work. Oh - wait...I forgot :
Dduck wrote:
The SAS airplane was NOT photoshopped, Dduck. Its logos were painted over with white paint.The event was 1991 and today its 2011, 20 years have past and you guys still dont have a clue why they photo shop events like this.
See, there is a pretty fundamental difference here. A real-world paint job is not the same as a Photoshop paint job.
Now, seriously - was this point of yours some kind of joke? What was your point, anyway?... Were you saying that it is a widespread, common practice to photoshop and tamper with pictures of plane disasters? And that we are all wasting our time here analyzing such images? Well - if that was your point with this SAS crash, you couldn't have made more of a fool of yourself.
Here's my honest opinion (as a half-Swede/half Norwegian) about this particular case: Since SAS has always strived to highlight its image as a super-safe and reliable airline, some old SAS executive at that crash site just shouted: " Fy helvete! Throw some white paint over the SAS logos - we don't want THAT to be aired on TV !"