boringguy wrote:
It could of been, they were calling film,
"video" as the film was transferred to video?

Why transfer it to video at all? That wasn't done for the Rogers
Report, and the major broadcasters had no problem belatedly televising
film photos of alleged "puffs" at lift-off.

From a government attorney's perspective, doesn't reference to a "puff"
seen on "dramatic video footage" deflect public attention from
government-impounded *film* exposed by press cameras which recorded the
lift-off?

As I recall, only negatives were returned to the press, not the film.
One must admit that this procedure allowed time for "enhancing" and/or
retouching of the press photos, whether or not such was actually done.

I have some bitterly adverse experience with the NY Times, concerning a
broken promise that paper made to photographically support a story
about my prelaunch warnings and my reporting of launch events. As I
understand it, that firm was the only one to attempt to recover its
original film.

Challenger's Ghost