The LA UFO INVASION BATTLE?

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.

Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
Don't think so but...

And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. rolls
eyes


Video and motion picture are not synonymous

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts and there
was no video tape.

Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.

If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its
faked.

Stunning is relative.

Look at genuine 16mm and the difference is obvious.

Keith

On Oct 6, 3:19*pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

On 10/7/2011 12:54 AM, J wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

"Got Milk?"


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

"J" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:45:01 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"J" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

Ha ha, now THATS funny. HA HA .

Do you like me?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news
...
Look at genuine 16mm and the difference is obvious.

Keith

There were plenty of short leftover ends of 35mm movie film available. The
studios/unions(?) wouldn't allow a camera to run with less than a certain
footage of film in it.

The 35mm Leica was designed specifically to use them up. It came with film
cassettes you could load yourself and a template to cut the half-width
leader its bottom-loading film feed system required.

My uncle was able to find 8mm color film in New Guinea.

jsw