boringguy wrote:
It could of been from one of the film cameras that saw the smoke (E60,
E63, E20, E41, E31, E71, E52, or E217 (co-located with TV-3)). People
often call video, "film." It could of been, they were calling film,
"video" as the film was transferred to video?

In the case of E60 and E63, that may be one of the first things which
comes to mind, since Rusthoven referred to a "puff" of smoke. I
rejected that possibility for the following reasons:

1) Knowing there would surely be intense scrutiny of his initial 51-L
actions on behalf of Reagan, surely a high-level *attorney* with
Rusthoven's reputation would be aware of (and be careful to make) a
clear distinction between recording-media and camera-type.

2) He said he saw only "some" of the video referred to, before it was
*released to the public*. I vaguely recall seeing at least one frame
from TV-3 on a mid-February 1986 broadcast. It had a magnifying-glass
highlight showing a wisp of right-aft outboard smoke.

3) The same wavy TV-3 video was released via FOIA in the summer of
1986, with the same frame highlighted in an identical manner. By
*then*, some might have thought of it as a "puff."

3) It seems more likely that Rusthoven had initially seen *selected*
film photos. (According to the Rogers Report, all were admittedly
*enhanced* to show "puffs," and many had no camera number or Mission
Elapsed Time.) From those, Rusthoven may have subjectively *projected
to video* the concept of "puff" (especially after nearly twenty years).

Having said all that, I'm still willing to digest any new information
which comes my way, even if ultimately it's from Rusthoven himself. (I
haven't seen anything resembling "puffs" from any of the other cameras
you mention, but I'm certainly willing to look at any you can provide.)

Challenger's Ghost