Reagan Attorney Claims He Saw "Puff" on Unreleased Video

Bruce Hoult :

In article .com,
" wrote:

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.

lolol

There apears to be a slight .. uh ... gap in your photographic
knowledge, which renders your whole point ridiculous and invalid.

Did really write the above? If so now I know why I have him
filtered out. That is as bad as the guy who claimed he could not show the
pictures he had take with his camera of the shutttle because NASA had taken
the the film to develop themselves.

Only problem, the model of camera he claimed to use for the photos was a
digital model - if you assumed the numbers were mis-report and tried the
logical variations you found binoculars but no other model numbers matched
cameras I knew ghost was dumb, but I did not realize how dumb.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On 21 Jul 2005 17:53:38 -0700, "
wrote:

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

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.

lolol

There apears to be a slight .. uh ... gap in your photographic
knowledge, which renders your whole point ridiculous and invalid.

I've never thought of myself as an omni, far from it. I'll admit to not
knowing as much as I should about film writers in general.

[snip]

The enhancement issue aside, you can't look at the images on the film
without developing the film. This chemical process turns the film into
negatives. The exposed, but not developed, film doesn't exist anymore.

When you have your pictures developed at the local photo shop, the
negatives you get back with your pictures are the same physical film
you gave them, but it's been through a chemical process.

Photographic paper is kind of like film. They take the negative film,
shine a light through it and focus the image onto the photographic
paper. When the photographic paper is developed, what you get is a
negative image of the film negative, which is a positive image that
you see as a photograph.

For slide film, I don't know if it develops directly into positives or
if there's another step involved where they basically make a negative
of the negative and stick it into a slide case. I never developed
slides at home when I was playing with developing my own film back in
the 70's.

Whether NASA returned the original film as negatives or kept the
original negatives and returned copies or something that had been
produced by manipulating the originals is a separate issue and one
that I know nothing about, not being involved in the aerospace
industry.

-- David

David Ball wrote in
:

For slide film, I don't know if it develops directly into positives or
if there's another step involved where they basically make a negative
of the negative and stick it into a slide case. I never developed
slides at home when I was playing with developing my own film back in
the 70's.

One of the slide films, Ektachrome?, develops as a positive; it's
a complex process because the dyes are in three layers. WYSIWYG.

--Damon

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:54:40 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

One of the slide films, Ektachrome?, develops as a positive; it's
a complex process because the dyes are in three layers. WYSIWYG.

....Correct. However, they're finding that Ektachrome, unless stored in
at least a halfway controlled climate, tends to discolor and the dyes
separate a *lot* quicker than Kodak expected. My pop has a whole
****load of slides from his stint in Korea that I've got to dig up a
slide scanner and salvage before they get any worse than they already
are.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in :

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:54:40 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

One of the slide films, Ektachrome?, develops as a positive; it's
a complex process because the dyes are in three layers. WYSIWYG.

...Correct. However, they're finding that Ektachrome, unless stored in
at least a halfway controlled climate, tends to discolor and the dyes
separate a *lot* quicker than Kodak expected. My pop has a whole
****load of slides from his stint in Korea that I've got to dig up a
slide scanner and salvage before they get any worse than they already
are.

Exactly what I'm planning to do; going to be a big job. I'm considering
one of the Nikon or Minolta units.

--Damon

wrote:
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.

I should add that blindly transferring to video 51-L lift-off film (of
various frame rates and from various look angles) makes it even more
difficult for the public to time-correlate the key smoke events.

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?

NASA claimed the press cameras were impounded to assure no loss of
footage valuable to understanding the disaster's cause. If that's true,
it strikes me as bizarre (in light of what the UPI photo's perspective
adds to those in Rogers' Executive Summary) that no press footage was
officially acknowledged as helpful to the investigation.

If the media had been permitted timely 51-L photo release (e.g., within
12-24 hours), the public would have had much more assurance that smoke
(key to an explanation of the cause) was not ultimately misinterpreted
or overlooked by official investigators.

Challenger's Ghost

wrote:
Using these photos from NASA film camera E63 as a guide,

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p25.htm

would it be correct to assume that one should normally expect to see
nothing but clear sky in the locations where the yellow and red arrows
point here?

www.mission51l.com/art/UPIsmoke.jpg

The answer is a simple 'no,' of course. One should see the base of the
hydrogen tank, all the way down to the level of the faint horizontal
line which is directly to the left at approximately the middle of the
red arrowhead. At the same horizontal level, but to the right of the
red arrowhead, is an aft stiffener ring.

Thus what you have on the inboard side of the tank (in those arrowed
locations) are evidently patches of black in a lightly colored or
nearly luminous fire.

Chech the viewing angle out for yourself, along with my conclusions,
preferably using a good Challenger model.

Challenger's Ghost
Copyright 2005
All rights reserved.

David Ball wrote:
On 21 Jul 2005 17:53:38 -0700, "
wrote:

As I recall, only negatives were returned to the press, not the film.

snip

When you have your pictures developed at the local photo shop, the
negatives you get back with your pictures are the same physical film
you gave them, but it's been through a chemical process.

That doesn't hold true when you submit a request for a few photos from
the middle of a 100-foot-long reel of positive film. In that case,
negatives must be developed and handled separately. This process is not
inexpensive.

snip

Whether NASA returned the original film as negatives or kept the
original negatives and returned copies or something that had been
produced by manipulating the originals is a separate issue and one
that I know nothing about, not being involved in the aerospace
industry.

It's my understanding that NASA returned copied negatives, not
originals. Whether said copies had been creatively altered from the
originals is to some extent TBD.

Challenger's Ghost