Reagan Attorney Claims He Saw "Puff" on Unreleased Video

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 11:47:04 +1200, Bruce Hoult
wrote:

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

....Bruce, John Maxson is a senile ****wit troll. Please just killfile
him and put him out of our misery. Thanks.

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

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