Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (12455)	3/8/2002 2:23:03 PM
From: deibutfeif	Respond to of 23908

BE, that's being pretty generous, calling it an interesting theory. Despite what the article claimed - that the 5 photos covered 4 one hundredths of a second - I think it much more likely that it was a substantially longer period of time. After all, normal video cameras only shoot 30 frames per second, that is, 1 every 3.3 hundredths. Surveillance cameras usually record at a much lower rate in order to save space and because "events" don't usually happen in less than a half a second. As I recall the plane was going at about 400 mph, which is 586 ft/sec, or about nearly 300 ft. in a half second. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a surveillance camera could have missed a plane moving at that speed. PS: Considering his last few posts, Andy's edging ever closer to making my ignore list (along with Gussie, Tommy, and Lenny)